DF 809 
.B4 


FT MEADE 
GenCol1 



° J* * 

-o v* . __ 

V ♦...• •** O .o> X 

■ > V o**®- cv -<y **V1% 

*• «,. A- .^%6?/L*. ^f. A* »>"-*- 

>'V <A 


s* fl ■ Y* v :^Wil -fear-Tt 

,^,*;A *15# /\ inf; ** v % -JB 

'••• aS^ , <*. '«•** j& o ‘■'TV?* /V <■ 

^ j?<* 'jpiiiyi: % °° vsssxw- **> ^ ^ 

. »; A*b 


. <,r- o V^wf* o ^ ** 

«' V :|K|: W .*Jfe* .• 

T** / \ '-SR** ** v % : JBP** : .« L , 

a° „. <v <. '*•...•" .o’- y, '«•?? 

<0 c 0 * <» O ( l ( » <£ rt V n It o 

v O jw" t /*W 0 * o 

0 '^S^urv* .O ♦ ttrU/Tp^ _ '7. V • «■ '-' 


l • 


<v <* 

■ °o 4** . ** c ~ 

O V v*CT 

v^v 

I'- W :*^T: .’, 

* ** V \ V 

A 



^c 



^ ' 7 ^* “ 0 O 

A * <i_r <pw ±*^colr<* 1* 

^ ®«o° o **,.,•’ -0 

i&*. *> v •;••- V ^ 

a»* r •&/>,:• V .• 

a= ^ 1 - fy 

£ ^ •M: «•' A, 

y *JSc0Sr» 4> V •<#> *.”w* 'V 

^ '•• ^ , <t> '••*• y * 

*^V * 1 * ♦ 1< ^. O " 0 

J c .v^v % 



« mxNV w - 

■ *■ tf) TvnI\\v > v n ^ ^ 

'%. •'*’•’«p V '* 1 t?=* < 

* w -*’ W 



- ^ V* ^^NhWvvv^ * k v ^ 

O. **,1* ^ O 

,0r o m o 9 o, v 0 J ♦ - ., 

^ 0- % ' 

* <sr ^ 


f' a* ^ vfty ^ ^ . 

yj^y, % c o* “ vs- v 

^ '/ii^ * •n* 4 0 '*-^5jiW- ° .if*’ v 

Jp-A. ;|K; 4 0 :al: ° v :i 

»«• -* « > 1 J; 

^ 4 ' 0w0 ° aO' 


* . C ' vosX\\\()'%.«■ ^ * agwf, 

■ t® 4 °'^^,* "ot^ 

° ^ ^ £'*+ *.f» 

<1_> O f\ a •»*^»U\v 

% •••’•* f° 

C' *0 4»V^4 <> 


“V v'mw 

^ * o M 0 0 - 0 ,^ '* 0 . *". 

' \ ^ * v yyy. \ j>* 

,: .*iSMi'. \/ *jSGk' % 



0 °o a* .•'JJ* ** ,.o* ••*•-. V 



.. v /" \ *.t§P/ ^ v \ \ 

* v •‘'■•^•'”“/.-.V-‘/ .»*.. v”*‘ 

C • c^Vv^. o c 


l'O . «> ' * * 

► * *P 



>■* «*Cr 





* «£> 4 

k - <** Cr 


o ^O, 


4 O ► « 

» i.i' ^ * '<K * ® a* ~v* 

• <jP O * ^c/J/**** 0 ■—, # 3“vKvS*' . K* 

^ * • - 0 ° * • » ' • A 0 ^ * ® • o 0 ^ 

-> <> ,V^ c\ .0 *»V% ^ 

. • *£> A* * ^ 

k ° A * 

° "^V 


•„ V** - 

v*V * 



• o 

* V ^ O 


A c '^ ^ % 'T 7 T*' A 
cr o°: a -» ^O A^ % . k "* ^ 

at / 



> V ** • •< 

• ^ ^ -V** • 
: v* v 




m ty *“ 


O V 





. + 


^ ^ * -f? ^ • L 

<, *♦?.*• .0*" A> ♦ 
f 0* ^-- 

- ** A? 

• o> 

; # °* 

* <,y 


* ** 0 < • 




•f. A^ » 
A ♦ 

t 


• A-V *• 



O • ft 


■\ * o 

fi\ .0 

" r'Sifc V** 

\ V > 0 Y//y^f^A\XV • r *b v/V 

^ ° ^JpCAt * A? vJ b' • % 

■ a V ,cr vjrr.* a <• 

& .•*■*_*♦ ^ «•• •♦ ”*b .*••« 

C *jc5^Tv^ 4 ' ( , O •* ^L 

- :^Bf: -o/ : 

* *; wV y* % 'WPS ^ % ’*^7 

> v .•••- o. **v% v % 

• %,* 4 .-i®^-. .-afei'-. ^ .•' 






. A q. 


♦ 4.' • 

,4- v x 

... ^ " 



\n^' * 

* 


♦ ♦♦ % « 



* • o. 


•^> vTk, 



• c 7 > 

* 4 j ^ 

* . 4 - v 

A F ^ ° • » ” aC> ' • • • * 

+- '^^-•. '^ 0 < - oV v 



A <y ,G V -o A 

V 0 •IsSSW’.. A> ^ C 



\ v 

V » y ••. o 


■ te. ^ .’aVa\ ^ .‘isteif. ^ ^ /AvI- 















































































































































































































































■ 































Jil- SO 3 

.3f 




AN 

EXPOSITION 

OF THE 


7 


CONDUCT OF THE TWO HOUSES 

OF 

G. G. & S. HOWLAND, 

^ - - A 

AND 

LE ROY, BAYARD, & COMPANY. 

IN RELATION TO THE 


FRIGATES LIBERATOR AND HOPE, 

IN ANSWER TO 


7 


& Narrattbc on tfjat <Sut>ject, 

BY Mr. ALEXANDRE CONTOSTAVLOS. 



NE TV-YORK: 

"PRINTED BY CLAYTON & VAN NORPEN 
No. 64 Pine-street. 


1826 . 







EXPOSITION. 





I 




1 had indulged the hope, that an authentic and impartial report of 
the testimony produced before the arbitrators, on their investigation 
of the matters in difference between the agent of the Greek deputies 
and the two houses employed in the construction of the frigates Libe¬ 
rator and Hope, would have enabled the public to have formed a 
correct estimate of the conduct of all the parties concerned in those 
transactions, and that I should have been relieved from the painful 
necessity of making a direct appeal to it. Such a report is in pos¬ 
session of the public, but the unworthy attempts of partisan editors 
in this city, and elsewhere, to counteract its effects, and to perpetuate 
the reign of prejudice and passion, have induced me, under the advice 
of some of my friends, to offer a further exposition as to the material 
charges contained in the pamphlet of Mr. Contostavlos. 

It would be a tedious and disgusting task to follow this vindictive 
libeller through the endless mazes of abuse and falsehood contained 
in his narrative; but, I trust it will not be a difficult one, so far to ex¬ 
pose and refute his calumnies, as to satisfy every dispassionate mind, 
that the conduct of the houses concerned in the construction of the 
two Greek frigates, has, throughout that agency, been correct and 
justifiable. 

I wish it to be understood in the outset, that I disclaim any inten¬ 
tion to impeach the honour or good motives of the Greek depu¬ 
ties. Judging from their correspondence, (and I prefer judging by 
that, rather than by what Mr. Contostavlos has thought fit to say or 
write about them,) I take pleasure in stating my conviction that they 
have always intended well, and that no estimate should be formed of 
their characters by that of their unworthy representative in this 
country. 

Mr. Contostavlos, in speaking of the house of Le Roy, Bayard & 
Co., is pleased to allude to my venerated father with some degree of 


4 


approbation and respect; a solitary act of forbearance, which would 
here be mentioned in terms of grateful acknowledgment, were it not 
evidently the expedient of a contriving, calculating malice, to dis¬ 
charge its overflowing venom, with an undivided and more destruc¬ 
tive force, upon the other members of the firm. 

It happens, however, that the estimate which forms the first topic 
of complaint in the pamphlet of Mr Contostavlos, was procured 
from Mr. Bergh, the shipwright, by my father, and was by his direc¬ 
tions communicated to the Greek deputies ; that estimate was for a 
ship of 50 guns and 1500 tpns burthen, carpenter’s measurement. 
The Liberator and Hope are ships of 64 guns, and average about 
2100 tons,carpenter’s measurement, carrying 32 long 32 pound guns y 
and the same number of 42 pound carronades, and throwing, at each 
broadside, more than an old British 74. 

Notwithstanding this disparity, the estimate of 1824 is repeatedly 
and most unfairly referred to, as applicable to the two larger vessels, 
and as that on which the Greek deputies had calculated the expense 
of constructing them. 

By that estimate, the cost of the 50 gun ship was equal to $165 
per ton ; according to the same ratio, that of each of the other ships 
should be - - - - - - - $346,500 

To which is to be added—1st, the additional expense per 
ton, necessarily incident to the construction of the 
heavier ships, arising from the increased dimensions 
of masts, spars, rigging, &c. - 22,000 

2d, cost of extra shot, sails, spars, kentledge, casks, &c. 30,000 


398,500 

3d, The great advance of wages and materials during the 
season of 1825, and the extra expense incidental to the 
rapidity with which these vessels were constructed, to¬ 
gether involving, according to Commodore Chauncey’s 
testimony, an extra expense of 25 to 30 per cent. 

amounting at 25, to. 99,625 

4th, The extra expense occasioned by the superinten¬ 
dence of an officer of the navy, - 5,000 

Exhibiting a gross amount of $503,125 

All these circumstances, fully explained and proved before the ar¬ 
bitrators, and well understood by Mr. C., are studiously suppressed, 
In order to give some colour of foundation for the foul imputation. 




that the first estimate was furnished to the deputies for purposes of 
premeditated deception. 

I will not pretend to assert, that this estimate, (taken from a print¬ 
ed document of the Navy Department,) was correctly accurate, even 
in reference to the object for which it was intended ; but who ought 
to be responsible for its errors, Mr. Bayard or the shipwright ? and if 
the latter, (one of our most respectable mechanics, and a man of un¬ 
questioned purity of character,) would not charity account for them 
upon some kinder preemption than a wilful intention to mislead ? 

In connexion with this pitiful attempt to fasten on the house of 
Le Roy, Bayard & Co. the charge of falsehood and misrepresenta¬ 
tion, I will here take occasion to notice another accusation of the 
same nature, relating to the information conveyed in the letter of 15th 
April, 1825, as to the number of ships building for this government, 
and those of the South American states. An American writing to a 
foreigner on such a subject, would naturally allude, in the terms used 
by the house, to the extensive naval operations going on in the diffe¬ 
rent seaports of the union. The expression “ dans nos atteliers,” “ in 
our ship-yards,” was evidently employed in this sense, and in this 
sense it was strictly true ; but by a most perverted interpretation, it 
is made to refer to the single port of New-York, and to serve as the 
foundation of a direct impeachment of the veracity of the writer. 

But it is alleged, that the frigates ought to have been built u in con¬ 
formity to the estimate in the letter of Messrs Le Roy, Bayard & 
Co. and the instructions of the Greek government, of fifteen guns 
per side.” 

The deputies, in their letter to Gen Lallemand of the 5th March, 
1825, say, that there must be a concert of action between him and 
the two houses, according to the instructions transmitted. 

The 5th article of these instructions, referring to the necessity of 
building, if purchases could not be made, is as follows:—“ General 
Lallemand will ascertain that the contracts are for frigates of the 
frst class , and that none other than the best materials be employed; 
and that in the building, rigging, equipping and arming the same, the 
same rules shall be followed as are laid down by the admiralty of the 
United States for their government frigates.” 

That the deputies fully understood what was meant by frigates of 
the first class, will be evident from the following anecdote: In Octo¬ 
ber, 1825, a gentleman of this country dined with the Greek depu¬ 
ties in London, when it was asked, of w hat size these vessels would 
be ? The reply was, rather larger, he believed, than the Brandy- 


6 


wine. Captain Miaulis, (the son of the gallant admiral,) then in 
command of a Greek brig of war, was present, and expressed his 
satisfaction, and said, “It is such vessels we require/’ Miaulus spoke 
neither English nor French, anil this conversation was interpreted to 
him by Mr. Orlandos, one of the deputies. Their views on this sub¬ 
ject cannot then be mistaken ; and yet, with unblushing effrontery, 
we are accused of violating our instructions by constructing frigates 
of the largest size. 

Again, after many sneering allusions to what is termed u the cele¬ 
brated economical plan of building by day’s work,” it is averred, (pp. 
10 and 11,) that the deputies, on the 16 th day of May, 1825, re¬ 
quested an approximate calculation of the cost of the frigates ; that 
this request was repeatedly renewed, has never been complied with, 
and that *‘ the deputies were kept in utter ignorance of the enormous 
expenditure that was going on, and of the ruinous misapplication of 
the funds destined to the salvation of their country,” until the work 
had proceeded so far that interference could be of no avail; and it is 
added, that f‘ had the two houses, in April or May, 1825, given that 
information of the probable cost of the frigates, which it was so easy 
for them to have obtained,” the $750,000 would have been applied 
to other objects. “ A fleet of sloops of war might have been built, 
or purchased, equipped, manned, and sent to the succour of Greece 
before the opening of the last campaign, and Missolonghi would not 
have fallen.” 

These statements are made with so much of circumstance and ap¬ 
parent sincerity, that one not acquainted with the true character of 
Mr. Contostavlos would readily suppose that he at least believed in 
the truth of them. 

The following are Gen. Lallemand’s letters to the deputies of 15th 
May, 1825, and their answers of 15th June, 1825, as read before the 
arbitrators: 

Translation. 

Messrs. Orlandos & Luriottis, New-York , May 15th , 1825. 

Deputies of Greece, London. 

Gentlemen. —After many difficulties in combining the different conditions, 
which, for the benefit of Greece, it will be necessary to adopt, we have at last 
determined on the measures for building two frigates of the first class. 

Circumstances are at present unfavourable for making contracts, as owing 
to the great number of vessels of war which have already been commenced for 
different foreign governments, the carpenters ask very high prices. 

The builder generally looked upon as most capable of executing the work 


/ 


well and expeditiously, asked at fust $455,000 for one frigate, without relei- 
cnce to the armament. After many consultations, he fixed as his ultimatum, 
and as a price from which he would not deviate, $377,000, also without arma¬ 
ment ; but he would not engage to deliver the first frigate under 14 months, nor 
the second under 18 months. This proposition could not be acceded to, either 
as to price or time. 

We have consulted some of the most experienced officers of the United States’ 
Navy, and in compliance with the advice of one of them, who for many years 
has been intrusted with the superintendence of the building of vessels of war 
for the government, we have agreed to build the two frigates by days’ work, 
that is to say, by directing the materials to be purchased, and paying for the 
work as it is done. 

Orders have consequently been given to the carpenters, who have gone to dif¬ 
ferent places to purchase the timber, Messrs. Le Roy, Bayard and Co., and 
Messrs. G. G. aud S. Howland, having furnished the necessary funds. These 
gentlemen draw on Mr. Williams for the sum which you have placed at their 
disposal, so as to accelerate the work by every possible means. An officer of 
the United States’ Navy will be intrusted with the superintendence of the work. 
This is necessary to insure its being conducted in the most advantageous 
manner for Greece, and we will then feel certain that the building is as it 
ought to be. 

I ought not to conceal from you, that the government of Greece cannot have 
these frigates at their disposal this campaign ; but at the same time I do not 
think it possible for them to procure others elsew here. Feeling how important 
it is that your country should receive prompt aid, I shall continue my endea¬ 
vours to find for your government two well armed vessels, which may be consi¬ 
dered as good corvettes. If I succeed, I will sail in these vessels, as the im¬ 
portant operation being determined on, as soon as it is in full operation it will 
no longer be proper for me to remain here, whilst I think I might render im¬ 
portant services by going to Greece and taking a part in the operations during 
the campaign. 

It is important that you should write immediately, authorizing the purchase 
of two corvettes; they would be substantial and prompt aid w hile the frigates 
are building. 

(Signed) Charles Lai.lemanp. 


TRANSLATION. 

General, London 1 \5lh Junc y 1825. 

We have just received your letter of 15th ultimo, and notice the exorbitant 
prices asked for the frigates by your carpenters. You can easily imagine that 
the time required for the building wa6 entirely out of the question. We believe 
that the plan you have adopted to proceed by days* work is the most suitable; 
but we must strongly urge the greatest vigilance and care, so as not to be de¬ 
ceived in the quality of wood, or the other materials. We have full confidence 
in Messrs. Le Roy, Bayard and Co. and we are pleased to find that similar 
undertakings are not novel to them. As relates to the time which will be 
requisite for the completion of these vessels, we flatter ourselves that at any 
rate it will not exceed more than one or two month? the time fixed in your 





8 


fust letters. You will remember that you fixed the maximum in the mont'f; 
of November. 

We have already given you our ideas about the purchase of two corvettes. 
It will in nowise answer; having no instructions from our government. If 
your friends intend sending vessels with the intention of endeavouring to sell 
them to the Greek Government, they may do it, but we can give no opinion on 
this subject. 

(Signed) Jean Orlandos, 

Andreas Luriottis. 


Let the reader compare these documents with the allegations in the 
narrative. The approximate calculation, as indicated by the prices 
demanded by Mr. Lckford, the builder alluded to, (and what better 
could be furnished ?) absorbing more than the $750,000 spoken of— 
i( the celebrated economical plan of building by day’s work”—the 
employment of a naval officer as superintendent—in short, every cir¬ 
cumstance by which the “ enormous expenditure that was going on” 
could be inferred, were distinctly communicated to the deputies by 
their confidential agent, within the period designated by Mr. Contos- 
tavlos as necessary to have regulated and guided their future opera¬ 
tions—nay, the impossibility of placing the ships at the disposal of 
Greece, during the approaching campaign, was plainly announced. 
The deputies were not kept in ignorance on any one of the points; 
and yet the $750,000 were not applied to other objects. No fleet 
was sent to the succour of Greece; and what is most to be lamented? 
Missolonghi has fallen. It will be seen in a subsequent part of this 
statement, that the two houses, as early as the 15th of April, also an¬ 
nounced to the deputies that the ships could not be employed in that 
campaign. Thus, then, the whole of this most pathetic lamentation 
proves to be a sheer fabrication, designed to inflame public prejudice 
against the two houses, by connecting their imputed misconduct with 
one of the most signal calamities that has yet overtaken the Greeks; 
a species of artifice to be found in every page of the narrative. 

Without wasting another moment upon this subject, in reference to 
Mr. Contostavlos, I would only inquire of his legal advisers, seeing 
that the whole of the above correspondence was laid before the arbi¬ 
trators, how they can justify themselves to the public for their agency 
in circulating these misrepresentations ; assuming, in this inquiry, as 
I think I am authorized to do, that the narrative has been ushered 
into the world under their auspices and sanction. If Mr. Contostav¬ 
los has been so far successful in the objects of his publication, as, in 
public opinion, to render the two houses in any degree amenable for 



9 


« 


the fail of Missolonghi, I trust this explanation will at least serve to 
remove that impression, by showing that all the information to the 
deputies, which this gentleman pretends to have been requisite for 
the preservation of that fortress,’ was fully and seasonably imparted. 

The cost of the two frigates is the next prominent subject of crimi¬ 
nation in the narrative. Notwithstanding the prices demanded by 
Mr. Eckford, it was the wish of both houses that he should build the 
vessels. Gen. Lallemand was opposed to it, principally on account 
of the time required ; the cost of the vessels, in the then state of 
Greece, being considered by him of secondary importance. We 
were all of opinion, that by day’s labour the work might be accele¬ 
rated without any material increase of the cost The appointment 
of a competent naval officer to superintend the construction of these 
vessels, was required no less by the vast importance of the work, 
than by the letter and spirit of the instructions of the deputies. 
Such, at least, was the concurring opinion of Gen Lallemand and of 
the two houses, and such also appears to have been the opinion of 
the deputies themselves ; for, when apprized by the General’s letter of 
the 15th May, of this and every other essential feature of the plan 
adopted, they did not hesitate to avow their belief, that it was “ the 
most suitable.” The appointment was first offered to Captain G. W. 
Rodgers, then attached to the navy yard at Brooklyn, but he de¬ 
clined it. Capt. Wolcott Chauncey had been known to Gen. Lalle¬ 
mand as a commander in the Mediterranean, but was a stranger to 
the two houses. The appointment being offered to him, he accepted 
it, and retired from active service in the navy, on furlough, relinquish¬ 
ing his pay and emoluments, and submitting himself to the conditions 
of a written contract, of which a copy is subjoined. 

“It has been judged indispensable that an officer of experience of the United 
States’Navy, should be charged with the superintendence of the building, 
equipment, and armament of the frigates ordered for the government of 
Greece, and with the direction of all the works relating to them, until they 
shall be ready for sea 

The purpose of arlopting this measure is to establish system and regularity 
in the various parts of this operation, which is to be carried on according to 
the principles adopted by the government of the Lnited States, for the con¬ 
struction, equipment, and armament of its ships of war. 

Captain Chauncey has been chosen to exercise this superintendence of the 
construction of these frigates, ordered for the government of Greece; and he 
has accepted this commission. 

In consequence, the contracts made for the building of the two frigates, hava 

been communicated to him. He shall immediately inform himself of every 

o 


10 


thing which has been done; he shail proceed to examine every thing which has 
been furnished ; he shall make report of the quality of the timber and other arti¬ 
cles, and on the existing state of things, in detail. 

For the future, every proceeding taken shall be settled by Captain Chaun- 
cey, and presented by him to be examined in Committee. 

All the proposals for the various supplies shall be received under seal, and 
addressed to the office which shall be appointed. They shall afterwards be ex¬ 
amined in Committee, in order that the furnishing of the supplies may be 
given to those whose offers shall be deemed the most advantageous, all things 
considered. 

It shall be the duty of Captain Chauncey to present models, plans, and de¬ 
scriptions of every thing to be furnished for the building, equipment, and ar¬ 
mament of the two frigates, never leaving out of view, that every thing is to be 
conducted according to the principles adopted for the building, equipment, and 
armament of the ships of war of the United States. 

It shall especially be the duty of Captain Chauncey to examine and approve 
every article of every description to be furnished for the two frigates; he 
shall allow of no articles which shall not conform to the models, plans, 
and conditions prescribed; and he shall make report as to the observance of 
this provision. 

The object of the superintendence confided to Captain Chauncey is to es¬ 
tablish uniformity, ( Vensemble ,) regularity, expedition, and economy in the build¬ 
ing, &c. of the two frigates.- This superintendence, therefore, is to be exer¬ 
cised over every department of the operations, the work, the supplies, the em¬ 
ployment of the funds placed in the hands of the builders, and the system of 
accountability to be established on this subject. 

Consequently, nothing is to.be delivered to the builders, nor any payment 
made to them, but on Captain Chauncey’s order. 

In satisfying himself that the builders employ the number of workmen neces¬ 
sary for the greatest possible expediting of the operations, Captain Chaun¬ 
cey shall examine the propriety of the wages to be allowed the workmen, 
and take care that they be regularly paid off at stated periods by the builders. 

Captain Chauncey shall have an office as near as possible to the ship-yards 
where the ships are building; so that the builders may confer with him every 
day at stated hours, and whenever it shall be necessary. 

All the proposals relative to the building, equipping, and arming of the two 
frigates, shall be addressed to this office. 

A meeting in Committee shall take place three times a week on stated days 
and hours; and at the first meeting in every week, Captain Chauncey shall 
make his weekly report on every subject of the superintendence committed to 
him; that is to say, on the progress of the work, the fulfilment of the plans and 
contracts, (marches,) and the payment of the workmen. 

Captain Chauncey shall devote the employment of all his time, talents, and 
experience, to the commission which he has accepted. He shall exercise the su¬ 
perintendence with which he is charged, and shall fulfil all its duties with the 
exactness which an officer of the navy of the United States ought to display in 
performing the duties of his service in the navy. 

The success of an operation of the deepest interest to a just and sacred cause 
is reposed on the character and zeal of Captain Chauncey. 

As a compensation for his time, his services, and the sacrifices made in ac- 


11 


tiu?piitig his present employment, Captain Chauneey shall be allowed the sumot 
ten thousand dollars for his superintendence of all the operations relating to 
the building, equipping, and arming of the two frigates, until ready to sail. 
Of this sum, five thousand dollars shall be paid to Captain Chauneey by the 
house of Le Roy, Bayard and Co., and five thousand dollars by the house of 
G. G. and S. Howland, by the funds placed at their disposal by the Greek de¬ 
puties at London. 

In case Captain Chauneey shall, in consequence of any resolution in Com¬ 
mittee, make any journeys from New-York, he shall be allowed for his indem¬ 
nity five dollars a day for every day’s absence.” 

The special employment of a master shipwright for each ship, 
was considered as equally demanded by the instructions. They were 
employed accordingly, and $25,000 was fixed on as a compensation 
for the exclusive use of their ship yards, work shops, smith shops, 
mould lofts, tools, &c. as well as for their own exclusive and undivi¬ 
ded attention to the two frigates. The agreement provided that they 
should quit all other work, and engage in no other, till the ships were 
completed (p. 22. of the report.) Under these restrictions, involv¬ 
ing, as the builders argued, the certain loss of many of their regular 
customers, they positively refused to accept any less sum. It is to 
be remarked, that although a great outcry is now raised as to these 
compensations, not the slightest evidence was adduced on the arbi¬ 
tration, that either was exorbitant, or that the same services could 
have been secured at less rates. Such testimony it was impossible 
to procure ; both the ship carpenters testified that they would not 
have taken less, and that they rather lost than gained by the job. 
But had we any option ? The 5th article of instructions, already 
referred to, required that the same rules should be followed , u as are 
laid down by the admiralty of the United Slates for their government 
frigates.” It is the uniform practice of the navy board, to assign to 
every ship of this class an officer of the navy of the rank of cap¬ 
tain, to inspect and superintend her construction, and to employ a 
master ship builder to direct and oversee the workmanship. If, de¬ 
parting from this regulation, we had caused these ships to be built 
like common merchantmen, or had employed an inspector from the 
merchant service, at if accustomed rate of $4 per day,” and they, 
like the English steam boats, had proved unfit for service, or in any 
respect defective, what could we have said in answer to the reproach¬ 
es that might have been cast against us ? If economy had been 
urged by way of excuse, would not the deputies have been justified 
in referring to the terms of the instructions, requiring us in all re¬ 
spects to conform to the rules observed in our public navy yards ? 

To show the enormous cost of the two frigates, a topic of com- 


n 


plaint and crimination, which occupies a large portion of the narra¬ 
tive, a certificate produced before the arbitrators, of the cost of the 
frigate Brandywine, is much relied on. When I mentioned the use 
intended to be made of this document to Mr. Eckford, (whose expe¬ 
rience as a ship builder, and whose important services to the country 
are equally well known,) he pronounced it an absurdity; and the 
candid and ready explanation given by an officer high in station and 
public esteem, (Com. Chauncey,) proved the correctness of that opi¬ 
nion. He frankly admitted, that the masts, spars, rigging, and sails, 
(no small items,) were not included in the estimate on which the cer¬ 
tificate was granted ; that those articles had all been taken from the 
Independence 74 and Congress frigate ; and that until replaced, the 
Brandywine would not be charged with their cost. This explana¬ 
tion, made under oath before the arbitrators, was well known to Mr. 
Contostavlos and his legal advisers ; and 1 will here again pause for a 
moment, to ask why it is suppressed, not only in the narrative, but in 
Mr. Sedgwick’s vindication, in which (p. 20.) the cost of this ship, 
“ completely equipped” is set down at $273,000. The Brandywine, 
without the borrowed articles, cost $273,000 

If we add for those articles 70,000 

She would cost $343,000 

The carpenter’s work of this ship was finished the preceding year, 
when wages and materials were much lower. Commodore Chaun¬ 
cey, moreover, expressly states, (p. 29- of the report,) that in addi¬ 
tion to the advance of labour, the expedition with which the Greek 
ships were built must have added very considerably to their cost; ex¬ 
pressing, at the same time, his belief, that they could not have been 
built in the same time or for the same money in any other port of the 
United States. 

If, then, according to his estimate before the arbitrators, we add to 
the above $343,000 

25 per cent, for these extraordinary expenses 85,750 


$428,750 

It will show that the Brandywine would have cost the government in 
1825 at least $428,750, without any charge for superintendence, or 
for the use of the public yard, work shops, tools, &c. and without any 
charge whatever for commissions. It is obvious, then, that no infe¬ 
rence unfavourable to the parties concerned in the construction of the 
frigates, is to be drawn from the case of the Brandywine, on which 




13 


so much stress is laid in the narrative. Nor will any such inference 
be authorized, by comparing their cost with that of the frigates built 
by Mr. Eckford for the South American governments, upon which, I 
understand, he received but a reasonable compensation. 

That the government of the United Mates, in the plenitude of its 
generosity, has thought fit to receive one of the Greek frigates at 
about one half its cost, is a fact that it does not concern me to explain 
or justify. If it appear (and on this point I refer to the testimony 
before the arbitrators, pp. 2S, 24. 27, 28 and 29 of the report,) that 
the builders were not overpaid, that every thing was done in the 
most economical and expeditious manner, that the ships could not, 
under the actual circumstances of the case, have been built at a less 
expense, and that General Lallemand, as well as the two houses, were 
indefatigable in their attention throughout the whole progress of the 
work, what censure, I ask, can justly attach to either ? Surely, it 
will not be contended, that the unexpected advance of labour and 
materials is to be chargeable to the two houses. 

There are two circumstances relative to these vessels—the rapi¬ 
dity of their construction, and the fidelity of the workmanship, as to 
which, without expecting the approbation, I did not look for the cen¬ 
sure of Mr. Contostavlos. On both points l will again refer to the 
testimony of Captain Wolcott Chauucey, in p. 26, and to that of 
Commodore Chauncey, in p. 29 of the report of the arbitrators, 
from which it will appear, that “ better ships were never built in a 
private yard,” and that none“ so good of equal size were ever built 
in so short a time.” The veracity of these gallant defenders of our 
country’s honour is impeached by Mr. Contostavlos with as little re¬ 
gard to the rules of decorum as to those of morality and truth. On 
the one point, by reiterated reproaches of unnecessary delay and 
procrastination, and on the other, by an abortive effort to show that 
the Hope was “ generally in an unfinished state” when delivered 
up under the award. A letter is introduced in support of this latter 
charge from Lieut. Gregory of the Navy, vouched by Capt. Earle of 
the merchant service. The specifications in support of it refer to 
the necessity of caulking some of the upper works, and some incon¬ 
siderable repairs of too trifling a nature to require a moment’s atten¬ 
tion, especially when it is recollected how lpng the Hope had been 
out of the hands of the builders, and that she had been exposed to 
the action of a whole summer’s sun. 

When it is considered that these formidable and superb ships were 
launched in 5 months and 3 days after their commencement, a rapi- 


14 


dity unprecedented, according to the testimony of Capt. Chauncey, 
in any port on the Atlantic, (we may add, in the history of naval ar¬ 
chitecture,) and that for model and v orkmanship they have been so 
universally admired, one would suppose that a passing word of com¬ 
mendation might have been spared in favour of those meritorious ar¬ 
tisans, by whose exertions, stimulated by a lively zeal in the cause 
of Greece, so much was accomplished in so short a time. This 
cheap tribute to unpretending merit, by interrupting the monoto¬ 
nous strain of vituperation which runs though the whole narrative; 
would, indeed, have been a kind relief to the reader ; but it might, 
also, have led to the conclusion, that there was one lurking feeling of 
candour, of generosity, or of justice, in the breast of Mr. Contostav- 
los, and on this account it is well, for the sake of truth, that it has 
been withheld. 

The commissions charged by the two houses are also made the 
theme of much angry declamation and abuse. On this subject, I 
must be permi ted to say, preliminarily, that we, in common with 
every other commercial house, must be allowed to exercise the right 
of judging and acting for ourselves on all such occasions. The 
building of ships of war for a foreign government, is not within the 
ordinary range of mercantile transactions; nor are the commissions 
for an agency of this nature to be regulated by the chamber of com¬ 
merce, or by the usage of commission merchants charged with the 
repairing or building of merchantmen. 

On the advantages and dangers of a particular business, every 
man, in every case, has a right to calculate for himself; to refuse un¬ 
dertaking it at all, or to designate the terms on which he may be dis¬ 
posed to undertake it. This was done in our case, by an explicit 
declaration to General Lallemartd, that we would not accept less than 
ten per cent, ft will hardly be denied, seriously, that General Lal- 
lemand, for this preliminary purpose, at least, was not the authorized 
agent of the Greek deputies. 

The General, by the first article of his instructions, was, on his arri¬ 
val in the United States, to call on the two houses, and concert with 
them the measures to be employed in their operations , and he was 
the bearer of a letter to the two houses, stating that General Lalle- 
mand possessed their confidence. 

To secure the co-operation of the two houses, either General Lal- 
lemand was clothed with power to settle the terms of that co-opera¬ 
tion, or this was one of the powers granted to him and the two hou- 


15 


ses conjointly ; and then their mutual agreement on the subject was 
the proper and only mode in which the power could be exercised. 

Unless this be a fair interpretation of his instructions, the mission 
of General Lallemand was nugatory; for then the deputies had no 
authorized agent in this country to stipulate with the two houses whose 
services he was sent to engage ; and, it would have followed as an 
unavoidable consequence, that the commencement of a work, for 
which the utmost possible expedition was supplicated, must have 
been delayed till the question of commissions should be submitted 
to the deputies in London. Could that have been the intention of the 
deputies when they s p nt an agent to this country to procure ships of 
war, under special instructions to accelerate their departure for 
Greece by every human exertion ? 

To General Lallemand, then, our determination was very natural¬ 
ly, and most clearly expressed; and after having learned that less 
would not be accepted, he made no objection to the rate of commis¬ 
sion required ; and, in forbearing to do so, I am sure he did not mean 
to mislead, for of such conduct he is incapable. His silence we con¬ 
strued into acquiescence, and so acted on it. If he had declined to 
allow the commissions demanded, the houses would have declined 
the proffered agency; one of the partners in each being extremely 
averse to undertake it, even on the terms demanded. 

After this our final and explicit declaration, as to the terms on 
which we would undertake the building of the frigates, we had a 
right to conclude that General Lallemand had communicated them to 
the deputies. No further question was afterwards raised on the sub¬ 
ject ; and those terms were always regarded by us as agreed to. It 
was attempted on the arbitration, as it is now in the Narrative, to 
magnify the exorbitance of our demand, by a reference to the holy 
cause for the support of which the ships were destined. I here take 
occasion, once for all, to say, that this agency was undertaken purely 
as a matter of business. The sufferings of the Greeks we had com¬ 
miserated with as much sincerity, and had contributed to relieve per¬ 
haps with as much generosity, as many of those who would now rank 
us among the enemies of that injured and oppressed people; but 
this was not considered by us as a fit occasion lor the display either 
of our sympathy or of our bounty. 

Viewing the rate of commissions as a question of usage, it may not 
be improper here to repeat, what we truly stated to General Lalle¬ 
mand when the subject was under discussion, that we had received 
for a less troublesome and equally safe business, twelve and a half 


16 


per cent. This we confirmed by proof to the arbitrators, in reference 
to the building of steam-boats with funds in hand ; and we offered to 
show by the production of letters and contracts which were objected 
to by the counsel of Mr. Contostavlos, and rejected as inadmissible, 
that we were to be compensated at the rate of ten per cent, for the 
purchase or construction of a ship of 74 guns, two frigates, and a 
sloop of war, (the same which are referred to in our correspondence 
quoted in page 8 of the Narrative,) for one of the republics of 
South America, and to be paid by bills on London, drawn against the 
loan effected in that country. The 64 gun ship referred to in the 
same passage belonged to Colombia, and came to this port for entire 
repairs. The consul general of that republic, now in this country ? 
was directed by the positive orders of his government, to place this 
vessel also under ourdirection ; and here 1 must beg permission to 
remark, that (insatiable as our thirst for this sort of business would 
appear by the narrative to have been) we declined to take charge of 
her, solely on the ground that Mr. Eckford had been previously spo¬ 
ken to on the subject. 

In the transactions just referred to, Le Roy, Bayard & Co. were to 
act with an established government, of whose honourable and noble 
conduct they had had experience : a government represented in this 
country by a gentleman (I allude to the consul general) who had at 
his control a million of dollars to meet the exigencies of his nation; 
and whose engagements, whether for himself or them, whether writ¬ 
ten or verbal, have been always most scrupulously fulfilled. Having 
been reluctantly compelled to refer to these transactions, I trust the 
consul general will pardon the necessary introduction of his name in 
connexion with them. 

But let us see what was stated before the arbitrators, in justifica¬ 
tion of the commissions which we thought fit to demand as the price 
of our services. 

Mr. Palmer, of the house of Palmer & Hamilton, produced on 
the part of the deputies, stated, that it was idle to talk of a smaller 
commission than five per cent, for the building or repairing of vessels; 
and, as to the business in which we had engaged, he would not have 
undertaken it for any consideration; that few other houses in this city 
could have undertaken it, or have sold the necessary amount of bills 
within a sufficiently short time; and that he would not consider bills 
drawn as cash in hand, until he heard their fate, although he had 
sold them. 

Mr, Burckle, of the house of Burckle Brothers, stated, that he bad 


17 


warlike vessels under his charge; that he charges ten per cent, for re¬ 
pairing and disbursing ; that he would not do it for less, and consi¬ 
ders that charge as a matter of course ; that he loould not have been 
induced by any commission to build for the Greeks ; that ships of 
war are a very poor security, not being an ordinary saleable article; 
that he has been authorized to offer 25 percent, as a premium for six 
months, for $40,000 to be loaned on one of the Swedish ships of war 
in this port, she to remain here as security, and that nobody would 
make the advance ; that he would not consider 10 per cent, and 
per cent, commission for drawing, as at all unreasonable; and would 
even think in a government transaction, that he would be entitled to 
another 2± per cent, for guarantying the bills ; that he has had a great 
deal to do with orders from the Colombian government, has seen a 
great many contracts with that government, and does not recollect 
any in which less than 10 per cent, was allowed—in some cases they 
were as high as 30 per cent. 

As an illustration how little such properly can be ma de an avail¬ 
able security, he further stated, that the armament of these Swedish 
ships had cost $90,000; and under the hammer would not bring 
$ 7000 . 

Much is said in the way both of assertion and argument, about the 
risk incident to our agency for the deputies; and our readiness to build 
other vessels for the Greek service is referred to, as an evidence how 
little we thought of those risks. It is true that Le Roy, Bayard & Co. 
did offer to build other vessels ; but let it be recollected that they re¬ 
quired one half in cash, and the other half in the acceptances of Bar¬ 
ing, Brothers & Co, or such other houses as should be approved by 
them. The house of Baring, Brothers & Co., whose standing is every 
where pre-eminent, did not consider the acceptance of the deputies 
for ,£1,200 as to be calculated upon until paid ; and J. & S. Ricardo 
had confirmed their credits to a limited amount. No comparison then 
can be made between the security under which we acted, and that 
required by the offer above referred to. 

Mr. Contostavlos (p. 53) is pleased to remark, that “ it is idle to 
talk of the danger which the houses incurred in trusting the Greek 
government,” because “ the security to which they looked was a fund 
of more than one million one hundred thousand pounds sterling, then 
in the hands of the Messrs. Ricardos of London, a house of the high¬ 
est respectability.” Without contesting their respectability, I should 
by no means admit the sufficiency of this boasted security, unless by 

3 


18 


the engagement of those gentlemen to accept our bills 5 or by some 
specific lien, the funds in their hands had been effectually pledged for 
our advances. We had unfortunately no such engagement, nor any 
such pledge. The fund to which we looked was diverted to other 
purposes, and our bills were refused acceptance. 

Mr. Gontostavlos says that he is a “ merchant, : ” and u can under¬ 
stand facts.” His capacity to understand, and his adroitness in per¬ 
verting facts to suit his own purposes, I am ready to admit 5 but I 
must be permitted to add, that this “ highly gifted man” is not very 
logical in the conclusions by which he attempts to demonstrate that 
we incurred no danger in trusting the Greek government. Another 
argument of the same kind is made use of to show that we incurred 
no risk by this agency, inasmuch as we had the power to stop the 
building of the ships at any moment, in case of a failure of funds ; as 
if such a measure could discharge us from existing contracts and lia¬ 
bilities for labour, materials, and supplies; and as if, when the work 
was stopped, we may not have been committed for an amount which 
neither, perhaps both frigates, sold under the hammer, would have 
produced. 

But I again repeat, this is a question of contract, not dependent on 
usage, nor on calculations of hazard. The risk and trouble inci¬ 
dent to our agency, we chose to estimate for ourselves; and experi¬ 
ence has fully demonstrated that neither was overrated. I appeal 
with confidence to every intelligent merchant with competent re¬ 
sources to execute such a business, whether, under similar circumstan¬ 
ces, he would now undertake it for less than we demanded. If such a 
merchant is to be found, I have not yet met with him. But I forbear 
to enlarge on this branch of the controversy.—Without dwelling on 
the actual diversion of the Greek funds to other objects, or on the mis¬ 
fortunes which actually befel Mr. S. Williams 5 or on the tremendous 
consequences of either occurrence if it had taken place at an earlier 
period, (the deputies avowedly acting as mere agents of Greece, and 
therefore not liable in their private capacities, if indeed such liability 
had been of any real value,) I will only ask the reader to look to the 
intrinsic uncertainty of the security provided in London for the pay¬ 
ment of our bills, and to the equally uncertain nature of the security 
afforded here by ships of war 

The Liberator, which cost $446,000, was purchased by the go¬ 
vernment, under the impulse of public feeling, for $230,000! A 
Swedish frigate, which cost sixty thousand pounds sterling, sold at 


thirty thousand dollars ! and a seventy-four gun ship, which cost 
ninety thousand pounds sterling, sold for about $31,000! 

Had the two houses been compelled to sell either or both the 
Greek frigates, without the aid of that kind sympathy which secured 
to them a purchaser of one, how much could they have realized for the 
materials? It will be recollected, that even these, which, like the wa¬ 
ges of the builders, had advanced 30 per cent, during the progress of 
the work, returned to their former level before its completion. 

It is objected, that a commission was allowed on goods furnished 
by Le Roy, Bayard, & Co. at their own price, and out of their own 
store. Without noticing the insinuation conveyed in this expres¬ 
sion, it will be sufficient to remark, that no commission was charged 
on these goods, except on the value of them as entering into the ge¬ 
neral cost of the ships ; and why this value should not be considered 
as part of the disbursements, equally as money taken out of our own 
chests and disbursed for the ships, I am at a loss to imagine. 

It is further objected, that the allowance to the shipwrights, and to 
Capt. Chauncey, should have been deducted from our commissions • 
and usage is referred to, to show that in cases of sub-agency these 
deductions are made. If we had employed sub-agents to attend to 
the mercantile duties which properly belonged to ourselves, there 
might be some force in this argument; but applied to a shipwright 
and a superintendent, it is absurd and childish. If we were justified 
in employing such persons, as to which I shall add nothing to what 
I have already stated, then we were equally entitled to our commis¬ 
sions on these'as on any other disbursements. 

The commission to the two houses, the compensation to the ship¬ 
wrights, and the allowance to Capt. Chauncey, are put forth in formi¬ 
dable array, to show a wasteful and unnecessary expenditure on the part 
of the two houses. If the Greek deputies had a right to our services 
without compensation, and if we could have commanded those of the 
master shipwrights, with the use of their yards and work-shops, with¬ 
out remuneration; and if the superintendence of a naval officer was 
not required by the instructions under which we acted; or if requir¬ 
ed, it could have been commanded gratuitously, then, indeed, the 
charges complained of were wasteful and unnecessary additions to 
the cost of the ships. But, without again discussing these topics, 
I beg to inquire under what possible circumstances the care, labour 
and skill of the master shipwrights were to go unrequited ? If a 
gross compensation had not been stipulated, what, let me ask, 




20 


* 


would have been their fair and reasonable earnings in the shape 
of daily wages, with the usual advance on the wages of the journey¬ 
men, &c. and what their reasonable profits on any other mode of 
building ? And again, if the work had been done by contract with 
the same individuals, with Mr. Eckford, or with any other person, 
would not the profits of the contractor, whether more or less than 
$25,000 on each ship, have entered into the cost of the ship ? 

I come now to the examination of that charge in the long cata¬ 
logue contained in the narrative, which, according to Mr. Contostav- 
los, is sufficient of itself u to fix an indelible stain on the integrity of 
the two houses.” 

The charge is, that we had asserted, in the most positive manner, 
that no law of the United States would be violated, and no risk in¬ 
curred by the building and equipment of the two frigates ; and that, 
at a subsequent period, we had set up the known illegality of the 
transaction as a defence against the claims of the deputies, (p. 21.) 

The first branch of this accusation is not true, to the extent 
stated; the latter is absolutely false. 

The concluding article of the joint instructions to Gen. Lalle- 
mand is in these words: et Before any arrangement is made for 
executing these orders, by purchasing or building the frigates, the 
two houses to whom Gen. Lallemand is referred, must ascertain in 
the most unequivocal manner, that their government will permit the 
sailing of the two frigates, and the enrolling of the men ; and that this 
operation, so important to the welfare of Greece, will meet no op- 
sition from the government or laws of the United States.” 

A similar caution was contained in the first letter of the deputies to 
the two houses, from their answer to which, under date of April, 
1825, the following is an extract: 

<l Immediatement a la reception de votre lettre, nous nous sorames addresses a 
l’un des commissionaires de marine. Ce departement est compose de quatre 
de nos officiers les plus estimes et du plus haut grade ; et ayant de l’influence, 
ils derigent tout ce qui est relatif a la marine. C’est en confiance que nous 
nous sommes addresses a l’un d’eux, et nous avions ainsi que nous le craig- 
nions ete prevenus que le gouvernement ne vendroit aucun de ses batimens, et 
ne preteroit aucune partie de ses bois de construction a moins d’y etre autorise 
par un acte du congres qui demanderoit S a 9 mois de delai, le congrSs n’etant 
pas actuellement en session. Une pareille demande a ete faite par les gouverne- 
mens de Colombia et du Mexique, et quoique leur independence soit recon- 
nue par ce pays ci, leurs ministres ont ete prevenus que leur demande seroit re- 
fusee, et leur objet a et§ abandonne. La position de la Grece est differente ; 
notre gouvernement se refusera a tout acte qui pourroit conduire a des difficul- 


21 


tes et quoiqu’il n’y ait aucune loi qui empeche la construction de batimens^ 
p our 6viter toute plainte des gouvernemens d’Europe, il convient d’eviter une 
publicite inutile et nousdonnerons k entendre que nousfaisons construire pour 
l e gouvernement du Perou ; en envoyant les batimens a la mer, leur armement 
sera mis a bord cotnme chargement: il n’y aura aucune difficult, et les bati- 
mens pourront 6tre assures a une prime trfcs basse qui nous croyons n’excedera 
pas 2 ou 3 pour cent, pour un, et peut 6tre deux ports. Malheureusement pour 
la cause de votre pays, l’ordre a ete retarde pour que les batimens puissent 6tre 
employes cette campagne. Le grand nombre de batimens de guerre en construc¬ 
tion pour Colombia, le Perou, le Mexique, et le Brezil, et 15 frigates pour le 
gouvernement des Etats Unis, occasionnent une telle activite dans nos atteliers, 
que nos batimens ne pourront £tre construits et prets a mettre en mer, en moins 
de six mois.” 

TRANSLATION. 

Immediately on the receipt of your letter, we called on one of the navy 
commissioners. This department is composed of four of our most esteemed offi¬ 
cers, and ol the highest rank ; their influence is directed to every thing which 
relates to the navy. In confidence we addressed ourselves to one of them, and, 
as we apprehended, we learnt, that government could neither sell their vessels, 
nor lend any part of their timber, unless authorized to do so by an act of con¬ 
gress, which not now being in session, would require 8 or 9 months before 
their determination could be ascertained. A demand of this nature was before 
made by the Colombian and Mexican governments : although their independence 
was recognised by this country, the application was denied and abandoned. The 
position of Greece is different; our government would refuse to commit any act 
which might lead to difficulties; and although there is no law which hinders the 
building of vessels, to avqjd all possible complaint of the governments of Eu¬ 
rope, it is desirable to avoid unnecessary publicity ; we will therefore hold out 
the idea that we are building for the government of Peru. In sending these ves¬ 
sels to sea, their armament will be put on board as cargo; there will then be 
no difficulty, and the vessels may be "insured at a low rate, which will not, we 
think, exceed 2 or 3 per cent, for one, and perhaps two, ports. Unfortunately 
for the cause of your country, the order has been retarded so long, that the 
vessels cannot be employed this campaign. The great number of vessels of war 
in construction for Colombia, Peru, and Mexico, and 15 frigates for the go¬ 
vernment of the United States, occasions such activity in the ship yards, that 
our vessels cannot be built and ready for sea in less than six months.” 


It will be recollected, that the necessities of the Greeks compelled 
them, at an early period of their struggle, to supplicate supplies in 
money, ships, and munitions of war, from most of the European 
powers; and that the impossibility of granting them, without vio¬ 
lating the laws of neutrality, was the ground on which those appli¬ 
cations were refused. England, it would seem, had so far shut her 
eyes to what her subjects were doing in favour of Greece, as to tole¬ 
rate loans for her use, the equipment of steam-boats to co-operate 
with her naval forces, and some indirect shipments of military stores. 


22 


It was under such circumstances that the Greek deputies, well 
aware that the law of nations was equally binding upon this govern¬ 
ment as upon those of Europe, were anxious to be previously ascer¬ 
tained of its feelings and intentions in relation to the construction 
of ships of war in the ports of this country for the service of the 
Greek navy. 

If the two houses, confining themselves to this simple object of in¬ 
quiry, had informed the deputies, as they were well justified in doing, 
that ships of war, destined for the service of foreign governments, 
were building in every quarter of the union ; that many had been al¬ 
ready completed and despatched ; that although Spaiu was repre¬ 
sented in this country by a vigilant minister, and by consuls in every 
port, the government of the United States had in no case, since the 
commencement of the struggle between that country and her colo¬ 
nies, seen fit to attempt any interference in a branch of business 
which was giving activity to the industry, genius and resources of the 
nation—every thing would have been done on their part which was 
necessary either to satisfy the inquiries of the deputies, or to allay 
their apprehensions; and with any intention to deceive or mislead, 
such would obviously have been their course 5 but having no such 
motive, they observed no such caution, and if the information they 
did communicate was not well founded, I most solemnly aver that it 
was believed to be so, and given in the most perfect good faith. 

The object of the deputies was understood by Gen. Lallemand as 
I have explained it; and that gentleman, not choosing to rest on the 
presumptions afforded by the passing occurrences to which I have al¬ 
luded, addressed himself to higher sources of information, and by 
personal inquiries ascertained to his entire satisfaction, that the ope¬ 
rations about to be undertaken would meet no opposition from the 
government or laws of the United States. Upon his return to New- 
York, we were all equally satisfied on that point; and after an infor¬ 
mal conversation with a professional friend, I ventured (perhaps too 
hastily) to adopt the opinion, that, as a matter of right , we could 
build the ships, and send out their armaments on board as cargo. 

This is the substance of our information to the deputies, from 
which it will be seen, that so far from asserting “ in the most positive 
manner, that no law ot the United States would be violated, and no 
risk incurred by the building and equipment of those frigates for the 
aid of Greece,” we confined ourselves to the security of the deputies 
in building , suggestingthe shipment of the armament as cargo , thus 


23 


manifesting our apprehension of some risk in the actual equipment 
of these powerful ships of war in our ports, and sending them pre¬ 
pared for hostilities against one of the belligerent parties, before they 
had even been adopted and commissioned by the other. 

The arbitrators appearing to consider the whole transaction as ille¬ 
gal, 1 am bound to believe that our conclusion as to the law, although 
defended by our counsel, was erroneous; but this is the head and 
front of our offending. 

It would not have suited Mr. Contostavlos to give this milder form 
to his accusation, nor to furnish the correspondence on which it is 
founded, lest what he imputes to us as an intentional deception, 
should plainly appear to have been a mere error of opinion; nor 
would it comport with his characteristic want of candour, to state the 
error fairly, without seeking to aggravate it, by circumstances, which 
on the document he refers to, appear to have no existence. 

But it is alleged, that at a subsequent period we set up the known 
illegality of the transaction, as a defence against the claim of the de¬ 
puties. Although Mr. Contostavlos avers that he has in his posses¬ 
sion letters from the two houses, furnishing conclusive evidence of 
the truth of this charge, I aver it to be false in the letter, as well as 
the spirit of it. 

The letters alluded to, are no doubt those which were written to 
the Messrs. Ricardos; the nature and objects of which I will now ex¬ 
plain. 

A letter was received from Messrs. Ricardos, stating that the cause 
of Greece assumed a desponding aspect; and that the deputies being 
about to send an agent to this country, they hoped we would consi¬ 
der these vessels as the property of the subscribers to the Greek loan, 
who had lost severely ; that the funds received for their building were 
provided by them, &c.; and that they looked to us to protect their in¬ 
terests. General Lallemand having read this letter, and left the of¬ 
fice, returned in a short time, requesting us to be guarded in our 
reply; that if we gave any lien on the vessels, or acknowledged that 
we considered the Ricardos as having any thing to do with them, they 
might never reach Greece. In our answer, we accordingly informed 
Messrs. Ricardos, that if they attempted to interfere, the vessels would 
be seized. It will thus be perceived that the illegality of the transac¬ 
tion was not set up against the claim of the deputies, but to preserve 
and protect their claim. The letters were so understood by Mr. 
Contostavlos himself; for upon his first arrival in this country, he in- 


formed us that the communication of Ricardos was, to his knowledge, 
written after consultation with a lawyer, that our reply had fortunate¬ 
ly defeated their object, and that he felt particularly grateful for the 
feeling that dictated it. He added, that if any cause of blame existed 
as to us, it was for not drawing all at once; and that if we had done 
so, the funds in England would not have been applied contrary to the 
wishes of the deputies, and the interest of Greece. That latterly the 
deputies had not even been allowed funds to meet their private ex¬ 
penses ; that the steam-boats were useless, and could not leave 
England ; that Lord Cochrane, who had been allowed an immense 
amount for his services, was amusing himself at Brussels, and was 
thus cheating the Greeks, as were the rest of his countrymen ; and 
that Ricardos had realized <£100,000 sterling out of the Greek loan. 
These were the first declarations made to us by Mr. Contostavlos ; 
and for the accuracy of most of this detail of them, I refer to General 
Lallemand’s testimony, (p. 20. of the report,) and I may confidently 
appeal to that gentleman for confirmation of every part of it. 

Our claim for damages on the protested bills was founded on the 
fact that those bills were drawn by the two houses on their respective 
correspondents, against and with a specific view, to the funds to arise 
from the bills on Ricardos, and which, for want of confirmed credits, 
we deemed it unsafe to negotiate on them direct. As the former 
were protested in consequence of the protest of the latter, and the 
drawers were thus made liable for damages, we considered ourselves 
justly entitled to indemnification. The arbitrators, upon strict legal 
principles, thought otherwise. We also claimed the usual commis¬ 
sion of 21 per cent, upon negotiating our bills, which the arbitrators 
disallowed, on the ground that this charge was not provided for by 
our contract; but they thought fit, with respect to the bills which, for 
want of confirmed credits, were drawn on our own correspondents, 
to allow one per cent, to cover their commissions, and the charges of 
brokerage, protest, &c. A large amount was thus deducted from our 
claims, and we were subjected to a heavy loss 5 but it is not my inten¬ 
tion to call in question the correctness of the decision of the arbitra¬ 
tors on either of these points. 

u The odious reserve of a new commission upon the sale of the ves¬ 
sel to the government,” is another of the charges which we are call¬ 
ed on to answer. We claimed, by way of security for the balances 
due to us, to receive the proceeds of the sale, and in answer to a de¬ 
mand as to our intentions on the subject of commissions, we chose. 


25 


as a matter of caution, to reserve ourselves until a final “ settlement 
of the accounts. rhis claim, never insisted on, or even made, was 
thus held in reserve, merely as a means to meet and counteract, as 
far as circumstances should ultimately render necessary and proper, 
the unreasonable pretensions of a captious adversary, seeking to avail 
himself of undue advantages in every stage of the controversy. 

It is alleged throughout the narrative, that accounts and vouch¬ 
ers were studiously withheld by the two houses. I shall content 
myself with saying, that the assertion is utterly false and unfounded 
in all its parts and bearings. A statement of the expenditures, as 
far as one could then be made, was handed to Mr. Contostavlos im¬ 
mediately after his arrival, and a regular account as soon as it could 
be prepared. It will be seen by the report, that the original bills 
and vouchers, supporting every item of the account, were laid before 
the arbitrators, and with all the other papers, were by them delivered 
to Mr. Sedgwick, (p. 42. of the report.) Some time was, however, 
necessarily consumed in collecting the various bills of parcels and re¬ 
ceipts ; but as soon as it was possible, they were laid before the ar¬ 
bitrators—they were subsequently delivered to Captain Earle, to 
verify the inventories furnished to the arbitrators by Captain Chaun- 
cey. 

Having thus examined, as far as I have been able to comprehend 
them, all the claims and charges w hich are made the pretext for the 
malevolent attack of Mr. Contostavlos, it may be proper that I 
should notice some other particulars in his narrative, which appear 
to have had no inconsiderable share in exciting the angry feelings 
and implacable resentment by which it is characterized. 

The shipment and loss of a parcel of shot on board a vessel called 
the Exchange, is brought forward with an affectation of ignorance 
and a display of mystery, calculated, as they are intended, to excite 
a suspicion that we had caused the loss of the value of that property 
by neglecting to effect insurance. The testimony on this subject, as 
will be seen in page 34 of the report, was briefly this : Mr. Wallace, 
about 1st March, 1S26, shipped the shot at Georgetown to Le Roy, 
Bayard & Co. and by letter through the post office, gave advice of 
the shipment; when the letter was put into the post office does not 
appear, further than that it was after the vessel had sailed. 

Mr. G. G. Howland and myself were, by consent of parties, exa¬ 
mined, on oath, before the arbitrators, and severally testified, that the 


4 


26 


letter of advice had never come to liana, and that we bad no know¬ 
ledge of the shipment until after accounts were received of the loss. 

Difficult as it may be to Mr. Contostavlos to understand “ how a 
merchant can thus miss the letters of his correspondents,” a disclo¬ 
sure of these facts might have assisted others more disposed to do so 
than he is, to solve the difficulty ; but this was not his object; and I 
am not, therefore, surprised at the suppression. 

It is said, that Gen. Mason’s letters on the subject of this shipment 
were called for, and not produced. The allegation is false ; every 
letter of that gentleman which could be found, was produced ; and 
it is evident, that none of them could speak of any particular ship¬ 
ment made by Mr. Wallace, so as to have furnished us with the means 
of making insurance. 

It is asserted, that Gen. Lallemand and Mr. W. Bayard objected 
to Mr. Contostavlos’ purposed visit to Washington, and recommend¬ 
ed to him, among other things, that of raising a loan in the island of 
Hayti. This allegation, in all jts parts, is false ; and so entirely des¬ 
titute of even the semblance of truth, and so inconsistent with what 
was said and done on every occasion in which his plans were discuss¬ 
ed, that 1 cannot imagine even a pretext for the misrepresentation. It 
is true, that Mr. Contostavlos, after regretting that adequate funds 
had not been drawn from England, and after informing us that he 
had power to negotiate a loan, inquired of Gen. Lallemand and my¬ 
self, what was to be done. We told him that a loan could not be 
made in this country. He, however, being of a different opinion, 
we advised him to consult several highly distinguished individuals, 
to whom, as I understood, he had brought letters. He afterwards 
stated their opinion to be in unison with ours. We then told him 
that his only hope of success was at Washington, and that he, as a 
native of Greece, could do more there than any other person in this 
country. He acquiesced in the propriety of the experiment. 

He knew Mr. Everett. I offered to obtain letters for him to other 
persons; and we further suggested, that if nothing could be done 
with our government, perhaps the Mexican minister might purchase 
one vessel, Commodore Porter having spoken favourably of the 
two frigates. An application to the Congress at Panama, was also 
suggested. This met the approbation of Mr. Contostavlos, who re¬ 
marked, that as Gen. Lallemand was a military man, and devoted to 
this cause, his influence there might be useful. Gen. Lallemand, 
however, urged that Mr. Contostavlos should first go to Washington, 


and suggested the expediency of hinting to the Mexican minister, 
that the Spanish authorities at Cuba would probably be glad to get 
one of these vessels, to prevent Colombia from obtaining a naval su¬ 
premacy. Mr. Contostavlos accordingly concluded to go to Wash¬ 
ington, and letters of introduction were procured by me to some of 
the most influential men there, whose names at present I foibear to 
mention. 1 also furnished one to the Mexican minister, although so 
little acquainted with that distinguished gentleman, that I should not 
have taken the liberty on any other occasion. The letters which I 
procured, were certainly among the means by which his wishes were 
accomplished. 

On his return to this city, he repeatedly expressed his obligations 
for these letters. That his reception had been most kind—that 
Mr. * # * * wished that government should present the two vessels 
to Greece, which was opposed by Mr. *****, whose feelings were 
alive to the cause, but who was unwilling to sanction an act which 
might be considered a breach of neutrality;—that Mr. ******** 
also received him well, but was less ardent. 

In the course of my subsequent communications with Mr. Conto¬ 
stavlos, I endeavoured, at his request, to induce the Messrs. How¬ 
lands to waive their claim relative to the <£7*500 in the hands of Sa¬ 
muel Williams, which they refused to do, but proposed to settle the 
claim by arbitration, and to allow Mr. Contostavlos to select any three 
respectable persons as arbitrators. 'I he proposed arbitration being 
rejected by Mr. Contostavlos, 1 offered, in the presence of General 
Lallemand and Captain Chauncey, cruelly as our house had suffered 
by the dishonour of its bills on Ricardos, to confine our present claim 
for damages to the sum we had actually been compelled to pay, and 
to leave the damages on the bills, the return of which was prevented 
by immediate remittances to London, to depend on the fate of the 
Greek cause, assuring him at the same time of my entire conviction, 
that the Messrs. Howlands would adopt the same course, it the af¬ 
fair of Williams should be disposed of; that we wished to see, at least, 
one of these ships on the way to Greece, and that if the other were 
sold, the Fulton sloop of war, belonging to Mr. Lckford, might be 
purchased with the surplus proceeds ; and I even spoke to Mr. Eck- 
ford to know whether he had power to sell the Fulton. Nothing oc¬ 
curred to interrupt the friendly sentiments which existed on our 
parts, and seemed to exist on his, until the interview spoken of in the 
narrative, which occured on the battery between Mr. Contostavlos 


28 


and my brother, and which, by the way, had no connexion with the 
accounts, but related to misrepresentations which my brother charged 
him with making, respecting conversations with the Messrs. How¬ 
lands. When Mr. Contostavlos afterwards called on me, and com¬ 
plained of the harsh manner in which he had been treated, I express¬ 
ed mv regret at the existence of any unpleasant feelings, and my de¬ 
termination to hold no further conversations relative to the part 
Messrs. Howlands took in this business, except in their presence. 
The first interview of that kind which took place, put an end to all 
friendly discussions between the two houses and Mr. Contostavlos. 
He aflerwards proposed, and they assented to an arbitration. Mr. 
Cheves, for whose character I have always felt a high and most sin¬ 
cere respect, was mentioned on his part as an arbitrator, and ob¬ 
jected to on ours, on the obvious ground of the remoteness of his 
residence, and the propriety of selecting the arbitrators from the 
equally respectable and disinterested gentlemen of our own city. 
Judge Platt and Mr. De Rham, subsequently nominated on the part 
of the deputies, and Mr. Abraham Ogden on ours, were mutually 
agreed to as the arbitrators, the latter gentleman being named by the 
Messrs. Howlands. I knew of no objection to Mr. Ogden, and 
heard of none; nor do I believe that any was made before the pub¬ 
lication of the narrative alluding to his connexion with me. Imper¬ 
fect must be that man's sense of the force of moral rectitude, and ig¬ 
norant must he be of the chamcter of Mr. Abraham Ogden’s mind, 
to suppose that this remote connexion could so far bias his judgment, 
<e as to preclude any just expectation of his impartiality.” £ut why 
this puny attack on the independence of one arbitrator, when all, 
even those of his own choice, are boldly charged with the infinitely 
deeper offence of gross and wilful partiality, I might say, of down¬ 
right corruption ? 

Pursuant to the terms of the submission, both ships were transferred 
from the possession of the two houses, and placed under the control 
of the arbitrators, to whom was committed the settlement of the ac¬ 
counts, and the decision of every question growing out of the agen¬ 
cy. Two of the three arbitrators, plothed with these extensive powers, 
were nominated on the part of the deputies; and yet Mr. Contos¬ 
tavlos complains, with his usual consistency, that he u was compel¬ 
led to accept the arbitration under all its unfavourable aspects.” 

The frequency and amount of our drafts upon London, is a topic 
of abuse and crimination, which I shall now examine, in connexion 


with the declarations of Mr. Contostavlos, and some documents not 
exhibited to the arbitrators, and not yet before the public. 

That we should have been anxiously desirous to secure effectually 
the means requisite for the completion of the two frigates, and to be 
kept in funds to meet the incessant and heavy demands growing out 
of the purchase of extensive supplies, often necessarily procured be¬ 
forehand here and in other parts of the United States, will not be a 
matter of surprise to any prudent man, who, looking back to the 
events of the past year, the convulsions which agitated the commer¬ 
cial world abroad, and the general state of credit at home, will call 
to mind the magnitude of our undertaking, and the expedition requi¬ 
red in its accomplishment. JNor, looking more particularly to the 
situation of the Greeks, and the various and pressing calls upon all 
their disposable funds, will it bethought unreasonable that we should 
press for confirmed credits to the full extent of our probable dis¬ 
bursements. 

This was done by the letter of the 31st October; and on the 23d 
of November, bills were drawn by the two houses on the Messrs. Ri¬ 
cardos to the amount of .£30,000, and in December and January fol¬ 
lowing to the amount of «£25,000 ; these bills, for want of confirmed 
credits, being remitted to the correspondents of the two houses, upon 
whom they valued for an equivalent amount, and negotiated the bills. 
These bills on Ricardo are ; .hose which, according to the assertion of 
Mr. Contostavlos, (p. 24.) the deputies caused to be protested, on the 
ground of their dissatisfaction with our proceedings—of their no 
longer misunderstanding our real intentions—of their discovery “that 
all the resources of Greece would be insufficient to provide for the 
cost of the two frigates.” It was then that they determined “to break 
off with the two houses all and every communication.” The same 
language was held by Mr. Contostavlos before the arbitrators, with 
the additional circumstance, that when the deputies ordered Ricar¬ 
dos to accept no more bills, they had on hand about .£50,000 sterling, 
(pp. 35 , 36. of the report.) I pledge myself now to prove, that all 
this, from beginning to end, is a tissue of falsehoods. 

In continuation of the conversations between Mr. Contostavlos 
and the two houses on his first arrival in this country, already detail¬ 
ed, it may not be improper here to state further, that he assured the 
two houses that the deputies were deeply afflicted by the protest of 
our bills ; that every effort had been made to provide for their pay¬ 
ment j that a distinguished messenger had been sent to Brussels, to 


30 


implore Lord Cochrane to lend for this object a part of the allow¬ 
ance which had been advanced for his services, and to offer him the 
ships as a security for his repayment. In short, that every effort had 
been made to move him, but in vain; with him, as with all English¬ 
men, self-interest prevailed. He assured us, moreover, that if the 
Greek scrip, then at 18, should rise to 20, the bills would be paid ; and 
that he had no doubt of the payment of the two bills of <£13,000 and 
£ 12,000. I have before referred to General Lallemand for the ac¬ 
curacy of these details; and to the testimony of Mr. Contostavlos be¬ 
fore the arbitrators, admitting that his previous communications with 
the two houses, as to the causes which led to and attended the 
protest of the bills, were totally at variance with his statement before 
the arbitrators, and with that contained in the Narrative. The ex¬ 
cuse assigned for this inconsistency, will be seen in page 36 of the 
report, “ because he thought it would promote the object of his mis¬ 
sion 

I perceive by an extract from a second pamphlet about to be put out 
by Mr. Sedgwick, published beforehand in a Philadelphia newspa¬ 
per, that the same excuse in substance is adopted by that gentleman. 
He calls the first communications to General Lallemand “ a diploma¬ 
tic answer;” a new species of falsehood, which, as it has no place in 
the late useful work of Mrs. Opie, entitled “ Illustrations of Lying,” 
might upon this high authority, be added to her ingenious classifications 
of the various forms of this detestable vice, under the head of“ diplo¬ 
matic lies.” The illustration would be afforded by a short history 
.of this controversy. 

Mr. Sedgwick attempts to palliate these misrepresentations, by the 
delicacy of Mr. Contastavlos’ situation in regard to General Lalle¬ 
mand ; forgetting that the same communications were also made to 
the two houses, as will be seen by the report and the circumstantial 
conversations which 1 have related. But Mr. Sedgwick might have 
spared himself the trouble of these refinements, because the represen¬ 
tations which he seeks to explain and excuse as false, were really true; 
the violation of truth now appearing to consist not in a colloquial 
misrepresentation to the two houses of the views of the deputies, but 
in the testimony of Mr. Contostavlos under oath before the*arbitra- 
tors. 

In proof of this, I refer to the following letters, which having been 
accidentally mislaid, were not produced on the arbitration. 

The first is a letter from the Messrs. Ricardos, to Baring, Brothers 


31 


& Co., of which they sent us a copy. The second and third are let¬ 
ters addressed to us by the deputies themselves. 


London , March 2, 1826. 

Messrs. Baring, Brothers & Co. 

Gentlemen. — In October last we gave by direction of the 
Greek deputies, a credit to Messrs. Le Hoy, Bayard & Co. for 
<£13,000. During the month of November, bills were presented to 
us in anticipation of our credit exceeding it by £12,000. These were 
all accepted by order of the deputies, under whose direction we have 
acted in this business, and who themselves entered into and conduct¬ 
ed the transaction with Messrs. Le Hoy, Bayard & Co. We have 
had nothing whatever to do with the management of the affairs, and 
can only pay for the deputies so long as we have funds in our hands 
at their disposal. These are now exhausted , and Messrs. Le Roy, 
Bayard & Co. can have no grounds of complaint against us, when we 
have already exceeded our credit by £ 12,000. We intimated this to 
them in a letter of 3d November; and we did not think ourselves au¬ 
thorized to return the bills presented to us, to wait for those which 
might be drawn hereafter. For any further information you may re¬ 
quire, we beg to refer you to the deputies themselves. Messrs. Le 
Roy, Bayard & Co. must be perfectly secure, having property in their 
bands conjointly with Messrs. Howland & Co., for which they have 
already been paid £155,000. 

Your obedient servants , 

J. & S. Ricardo. 


London , 28 th March , 1826. 

Messrs. Le Roy, Bayard & Co. 
and G. G. & S. Howland, New-York. 

Gentlemen —Above is a copy of the letter which we had the 
honour to address you the 21st of the present month. We have 
since been deprived of your favours. By the present we renew our 
entreaties, and call your attention and your efforts to effect, conjointly 
with Mr. Contostavlos, a prompt arrangement in regard to the fri¬ 
gates. As your opinion accords fully with ours in regard to the 
great good which these two vessels may render to our country, we 
doubt not you will not neglect any means to send it this powerful aid, 
which will contribute, in an eminent degree, to her independence, 
and will place Greece in a situation to pay all her debts, were they 




32 


ten times greater than she has contracted. We wait with great im¬ 
patience this happy era, which will afford such great satisfaction as 
well to the Greeks as to the Americans. If the frightful distress that 
exists in the commerce of this capital had not thrown us into difficul¬ 
ties, we should have long since taken the necessary measures to dis¬ 
charge an obligation for an object of such vast importance. 

It is to you, now, and to your gallant fellow citizens, that we ap¬ 
peal to supply the resources that fail us—to cause the departure of 
the frigates, although these resources be, in fact, a very small object. 

London , 6tli April , 1826. 

Gentlemen —We confirm the contents of the letter which pre¬ 
cedes, and which we had the honour to address to you the 28th of 
the last month. We hope that ere this you will have already made 
with Mr. Contostavlos the necessary arrangements, and the most ad¬ 
vantageous to all parties, to hasten the departure of the frigates, 
and that if they are not already gone, they will not be delayed on that 
account. It is thus that we consider it useless to renew in this our 
entreaties, to take a prompt determination in regard to them. 

We have had direct news from Greece of a very favourable na¬ 
ture. Ibrahim Pacha has been vigorously repulsed with considerable 
loss in three attacks which he had made on Missolonghi. We have 
letters from Corfu to 8th March, which confirm this defeat, of which 
we promise ourselves details by the next mail. So far you will see 
by the copy of the letter here enclosed. 

In communicating to you all this agreeable news, we have the sa¬ 
tisfaction to have it in our power to announce, also, that notwith¬ 
standing they no longer think in Greece of an European interven¬ 
tion, and expect but little succours from England, either in money or 
munitions, the most energetic measures have been adopted by the go¬ 
vernment to repulse the enemy, and to find resources in the country 
itself. 

We have the honour to he , #c. 8fc. 

John Orlandos. 
Andreas Luriott 

1 have thus exposed the utter falsehood of the narrative in relation 
to the dishonour of our bills on Ricardos, by proving from the con¬ 
temporaneous information both of that house and of the Greek depu¬ 
ties, as well as from the declarations of Mr. Contostavlos himself, 



that this catastrophe was not occasioned by any dissatisfaction on 
the part of the deputies, but by the failure of the Greek funds ; that 
the deputies, at that time, had not at their command scrip, or any 
other disposable property, of the value of ,£50,000 sterling, but on 
the contrary, that their funds were altogether exhausted. That the 
bills were not protested by the orders of the deputies, but in opposi¬ 
tion to their earnest wishes, and that the deputies did not, upon any of 
the pretences stated, determine to break off, and that in point of fact, 
they did not break off, all communication with the two houses. 

Itifollows, that what was stated under oath on this subject, by Mr. 
Contostavlos to the arbitrators, is untrue. His testimony was evi¬ 
dently moulded in conformity with circumstances which occurred af¬ 
ter the rupture between him and the two houses, to suit his purposes 
in the arbitration ; and the web of falsehood thus artfully woven, was 
again put in requisition to aid in the still baser purposes of the pre¬ 
sent attack. It seems, however, that in Mr. Sedgwick’s opinion, 
something more than admitted falsehood (t must be sought to impeach 
the character of a highly gifted man, a most devoted patriot, and the 
friend of Miaulis, and the friend and correspondent of Coruy and La 
Fayette.” We are to “ seek other cause ’gainst Roderick Dhu.” 

It is strange that Mr. Sedgwick,'professing “ religious principles,” 
and so well acquainted with, and so commendably influenced by, the 
duties of “ a brother, a husband, and a father,” should forget the 
obligations belonging to other relations of life—that he should not 
only be callous to injuries wantonly committed upon the characters 
of our old and respectable citizens, but an accessary in their inflic¬ 
tion, and at the same time should be so keenly alive to any reproach 
upon the morality of a new friend, known to him “ from the 1st of 
June to the middle of October.” He could witness with perfect com¬ 
posure and complacency, a most uncourteous assault upon the arbi¬ 
trators ; but when, in self-defence, his knight of many friends was 
made to feel the pressure of the combat, Mr. Sedgwick resumed all 
his sensibilities. With the blind devotion of the squire, and with 
the characteristic fury of the chieftain, whom he so classically intro¬ 
duces to the public, 

“ Like adder darting from his coil, 
w Like wolf that dashes through the toil, 

“ Like mountain cat who guards her young, 

“ Full at Fitz James’s throat he sprung.” 


Flattery is a most powerful instrument of mischief upon minds 
prone to vanity and self-conceit. In terms of high wrought compli¬ 
ment, the public was told that “the same country that gave birtli to 
these arbitrators, also gave existence to Henry D. Sedgwick !—This 
nauseous flattery, as disgusting as it is ridiculous, was swallowed, and 
has had its full effects. Mr. Contostavlos finds-a ready defender of 
his vices—nay, he is exalted into “ the descendant of a race of heroes 77 
—nay, more, Mr. Sedgwick stoops to adopt him as his patron, and 
under the auspices of his name to address a second appeal to the 
American public. 

But I will seriously ask of Mr. Sedgwick, whether he has aught 
more disgraceful than admitted falsehood to urge against the charac¬ 
ter of those whose motives he himself has impugned, and whose in¬ 
tegrity he himself has impeached ? Whether he has stronger ground 
upon which to wound the feelings, and insult the honour of a high- 
minded gentleman, the friend of virtue, of morality, and of religion, 
(I care not of whom else he is the friend,) who long before the name 
of Mr. Henry D. Sedgwick had been heard in this community, had 
earned a reputation which matured and strengthened by after years 
of continued devotion to his country’s service, has hitherto been un¬ 
sullied by the breath of slander ? 

Alexandre Contostavlos, (says his kind apologist,) has a charac¬ 
ter which the gentlemen before whom he appeared did not, and could 
“ not appreciate.” In charity to that public whose credulity he has 
imposed on, whose indulgence he has abused, I trust that they also 
did not, could not appreciate his character, when they listened for a 
moment to the foul calumnies contained in his narrative. 

But to return to my subject. Without seeking to lay any great 
stress upon what 1 believe to have been an honest expression of Mr. 
Contostavlos 7 regrets, that the Greek funds had not been more 
promptly secured by our drafts, I think it sufficiently appears that the 
deputies have not thought fit to complain of our having valued on 
them with undue precipitation. And another fact is now developed, 
(the entire failure of those funds,) which may assist the reader in esti¬ 
mating the nature of the risk attached to our agency ; and also the 
falsehood of the assumption, and the fallacy of the reasoning employ¬ 
ed on that point by Mr. Contostavlos, whose vaunted security of 
£1,100,000 sterling in the hands of the Messrs. Ricardos, we find 
exhausted by drafts amounting to £155,000! 

I have now finished my examination of this foul assemblage of ca- 


lumnies, falsehood, and abuse. I forbear to dwell upon its gross 
misrepresentations, its uniform disingenuousness, and its glaring ma¬ 
levolence in regard to the conduct and motives of the two houses ; 
upon its indecent and contemptuous allusion to the conduct and tes¬ 
timony of that accomplished soldier, who, with chivalrous devotion to 
the cause of an oppressed people, had already consecrated his time, 
and had consented to stake his life in their service, and of that gal¬ 
lant officer who has so long assisted in sustaining the honour of our 
own country; or upon its injustice to the worthy builders of the two 
frigates. Nor will I stop to adimadvert upon the foul ingratitude dis¬ 
played by Mr. Contostavlos towards the people of England, that 
generous people who, always ready to devote their ample resources 
to the diffusion of the blessings of religion and of civil liberty, have 
done so much for the cause of Greece. Much less will I waste a mo¬ 
ment in exposing the turpitude of that gross violation of faith exhibi¬ 
ted in Mr. Contostavlos’ refusal to abide by the award; and in his 
subsequent extortion of $24,000 from the two houses as the price on 
which he would forego his opposition, and release them from a vexa¬ 
tious and protracted litigation in chancery, leading to the further dete¬ 
rioration of the ships, to retard the departure of either to the succour of 
Greece, and to prolong the payment of lar^e balances remaining due 
to us ; but as an humble member of the community, l will not forbear 
to record my reprobation of the wanton and unhallowed aspersions 
thrown by Mr. Contostavlos upon the characters of the arbitrators, 
whose award has given rise to these discussions. 

If the voluntary submission of private differences to the arbitra¬ 
ment of indifferent persons amicably selected by the parties them¬ 
selves, be a salutary, as it certainly is an ancient institution; if arbi¬ 
trators thus called to sit in judgment, be indeed “ ministers of justice,” 
as they are aptly styled in the narrative ; what protection is uot due to 
them against the abusive attacks of angry suitors, and disappointed 
lawyers? How deeply are the public interests concerned in securing 
to them that protection ? 

Judge Platt, an approved and long tried servant of his country, as 
a senator distinguished by firm and manly independence, as a judge 
on our highest tribunal of justice, by superior discrimination and un¬ 
deviating impartiality; Mr De Rham, and Mr. Ogden, merchants of 
unblemished reputation, and acknowledged intelligence; each of these 
three gentlemen, respectable in his connexions, pure in character, and 


36 


commendable in all the relations of life; each alike entitled to and en¬ 
joying universal respect and confidence, are publicly accused of wilfully 
gross partiality in the discharge of the duties attached to the respon¬ 
sible and sacred office of an arbitrator. And by whom are these high 
charges preferred ? When I reflect on the willing ear which has in 
some instances been lent to them, I blush to answer, by a foreigner, 
(whose best claim to credit rests on the circumstance of his being un¬ 
known,) supported and abetted by his avowed advocate, a man who, 
appearing before the public, not only in this, his professional charac¬ 
ter, but also in that of a party personally aggrieved, exhibits all the 
angry feelings of insulted honour and wounded pride; and who, in 
point of age, standing, and all the circumstances which give weight 
and dignity to character, is far, very far, inferior to either of the three 
arbitrators. 

In conclusion, I have only to express my earnest hope that nothing 
which I have said in the course of this discussion, may be considered 
as intended to prejudice the interests of Greece, or as denoting any in¬ 
difference on my part to her fate. I would rather animate than re¬ 
press the generous feelings of my countrymen, in a cause dear to the 
hearts of freemen in every quarter of the globe. I would gladly hail 
the appearance of a sympathy in favour of this gallant and oppressed 
people; which, excited for nobler purposes than the gratification of 
private animosities, and having in view a higher object than the inju¬ 
ry and disgrace of our own citizens, shall not be made subservient to 
such base ends; but which, founded on a pure and enlightened bene¬ 
volence, shall lead to deeds of charity and munificence, worthy of a 
cause so holy and momentous. 

WILLIAM BAYARD. 

Neic-Yorlc , November , 1826. 

- \ 

I feel it my duty to annex the following letter of introduction, not 
for the purpose of exhibiting a new instance of Mr. Contostavlos’ 
disregard to truth, but to rescue the illustrious Lafayette from the 
stigma of having been at any time his friend and correspondent. It 
will be seen by the letter, that even the name of Mr. Contostavlos 
was not known to the general when he came out to this country. 





Paris , March 14 th f 1826. 

My Dear Sir —While I was writing to you from La Grange, and 
expressing my deep regret for the delays relative to our two frigates, a 
Greek gentleman, Mr. ALEXANDRE CONTOSLOLOS has called 
on my lodgings in town, to inform me he was hastening to New-York, 
by way of England, to carry the sum of <£300,000 destined to expe¬ 
dite them. As he had no time to wait, the message was delivered by 
a common friend, with the request of some letters of introduction to 
New-York—no better one, to be sure, can be given, than the bill of 
which he is the welcome bearer, and which, I understand, is an ad¬ 
vance made by Greek merchants. But having not two hours to lose 
to forward this letter to London, and a duplicate to Havre, I shall 
only present to you Mr. Contoslolos, and rejoice w'ith you on the 
unexpected circumstance of this supply, the particulars of which, 
the bearer will better explain than I have time to ascertain them. 
Once more, my dear sir, let me express my ardent wish that the fri¬ 
gates may be sent out as soon as possible—their speedy arrival is of 
the highest moment, not only for Grecian salvation and Grecian inde¬ 
pendence, but also for the share it becomes the citizens of the United 
States to have in their noble homogeneous cause. As to personal 
introductions of Mr. Contoslolos you will be able to make them in 
our joint names; and I shall only add, the expression of my high re¬ 
gard and affectionate friendship. 

LA FAYETTE. 

To William Bayard, Esq. 




38 


The following is the letter from the Arbitrators to Messrs, T. A. 

Emmet and D. B. Ogden , with their reply, 

\ 

New-York, Nov. 13th , 1826. 

To Thomas Addis Emmet and 
David B. Ogden, Esqrs. 

Gentlemen—A publication in the New-York Evening Post of 
Saturday last, under the signature of Henry D. Sedgwick , asserts? 
that “ with regard to the documentary evidence, and also the oral 
testimony given before the arbitrators, (in the case of the Greek 
ships,) their report is materially unfair, as well from a suppression of 
the evidence essentially necessary to form a just opinion on the sub¬ 
ject, as from an erroneous statement of facts and evidence.” In a 
publication in the same paper, under the signature of John Duer , it 
is stated, that “ as a report of the evidence and proceedings, and of 
the points relied on by the counsel for the deputies on the hearing, it 
(the report of the arbitrators) is inaccurate, partial, and very defec¬ 
tive. They have omitted to state the grounds upon which we mainly 
relied to defeat the claims for commissions, and the evidence in sup¬ 
port of them ; my impression is that they have omitted the whole 
of that evidence. From such a report, the public, I should think, 
could form no judgment of the merits of the controversy, and cer¬ 
tainly none of the sufficiency of the reasons alleged in defence of the 
award.” 

Mr. Duer also promises “ a full and detailed statement of the er¬ 
rors and omissions” to which he alludes. But he reserves to himself 
“tojudge of the time and manner of fulfilling it.” 

As you well know, gentlemen, the late report of the arbitrators 
was prepared and published without your knowledge or privity, and 
without any previous conference with you, directly or indirectly, on 
that subject; and in a controversy embracing such a vast field of in¬ 
vestigation and discussion, we have not the presumption to claim the 
merit of perfect and unerring accuracy in our statements of all the 
points, admissions, objections, and exceptions, with the minute de¬ 
tails of oral testimony. We are responsible for impartiality, and for 
the truth and accuracy of our report in all material points; and our 
veracity is staked to that extent. 


39 


Why it was thought expedient by Mr. Duer to endeavour to fore¬ 
stall public opinion, by giving such a general pledge without specifi¬ 
cation, to be redeemed hereafter at such time, and in such manner , as 
shall best suit his purposes , we forbear to express an opinion. But 
as you were counsel in that arbitration, and know the truth better 
than any persons to whom we can appeal, we claim from your sense 
of justice a statement to the public of your opinion as to the truth and 
fairness of our report. 

With respect, your obedient servants, 

Jonas Platt. 

H. C. De Rham. 

Abm. Ogden. 


New-York, Nov. 14th, 1826. 

To Jonas Platt, H. C. De Riiam, 
and Abraham Ogden, Esqrs. 

Gentlemen — We received your letter yesterday. A sense of du¬ 
ty towards you renders its call on us imperative ; at the same time, 
we very much regret that it is become necessary. When, in the 
month of August last, our clients, contrary to our advice and opinion, 
agreed to deduct, each house $12,000, from the amount of your 
award, we little anticipated the course that has been since pursued re¬ 
specting it. The motives for that reduction have been much misre¬ 
presented, as if it was a concession from fear of the equity suit. The 
contrary, we have every reason to be convinced, was the fact. We 
advised against it, and so did the most able and learned chancery ju¬ 
rist with whom we were associated. All three of us, the professional 
advisers of those houses, explicitly stated our opinions that the award 
could not be shaken. Whether we judged rightly or not is immate¬ 
rial now_we are sure our clients entertained no apprehensions on 

that point. As we took no part in the arrangement for that compro¬ 
mise, we can only speak of it from information ; but we understood 
the deduction was made to prevent a protracted litigation, that would 
have been inconvenient to all parties, might have been injurious to 
some, and would have essentially retarded the wished for succour to 
the Greeks, if any succours could have been serviceable. Indeed, 
one motive assigned for the deduction was generosity: that without 
it (as was represented) the frigate could not be dispatched. After 
that arrangement, made in the spirit of amity and compromise, we 
never expected to hear more of the controversy. It was represented 


I 



40 


to us as made under a solemn agreement, that all dispute and angry 
discussions were to cease; and, with the impression so made on us, 
we regarded the anonymous newspaper publications which preceded 
Mr. Sedgwick’s pamphlet, and that pamphlet itself, as scarcely consist¬ 
ent with good faith. Personal considerations, with which we had no 
connexion, may, perhaps, be thought to excuse Mr. Sedgwick’s 
appearance in print; but the recent publications show that the 
conciliatory assurances, under which the arrangement was made, are 
to be utterly disregarded, after the fruits of them have been ob¬ 
tained and carried away. Should that, however, prove to be the case, 
neither your wishes nor ours require us to take part in this strangely 
excited controversy. We do not desire to receive or retort asperities ; 
—enough, and more than enough of them passed during the discus¬ 
sion before you ; and, after its close, we hoped we might be permit¬ 
ted to forget that they had ever existed. 

All that you require of us is our testimony that your statements are 
not incorrect—we cannot in justice refuse it—but what use can it be 
of to you ? It is with extreme regret we perceive, from the recep¬ 
tion given to the attacks made on you and on our former clients, that 
in this community, lives of unsullied probity and purity—a judicial 
career of distinguished ability and unspotted integrity—commercial 
reputations of long standing, and above all reproach, are of no avail 
against harsh charges, backed by popular feelings.—What, then, can 
our testimony avail ? We can add to it no weight, except from the 
reputations and characters we may have acquired through life. 

In order to qualify ourselves for correctly answering your letter, we 
have carefully compared your statement with our notes of the evi¬ 
dence given on the arbitration. As to the conversations and proceed¬ 
ings between you and the counsel or parlies, which are alluded to both 
by you and Mr. Sedgwick, we took no note of them, because we were 
not at the time aware of their possible future importance; and as to 
them we can only speak from memory; but on the accuracy of our 
notes of the oral evidence we think we can rely. 

The first matter in your statement that seems to be controverted, 
relates to the conversation which grew out of the transfer of the ves¬ 
sels to you, and the trust created thereby. That instrument was not 
prepared by either of us—nor was the submission ; and we had but 
a very general knowledge of their contents. We therefore apprehend 
you are somewhat incorrect in saying, (p. 6.) the counsel/or the par¬ 
ties answered.—We do not recollect to have said any thing—and 


41 


if either of us did, it must have been very little. The conversation 
was, we think, exclusively between the counsel for the deputies and 
yourselves. In that, however, we perfectly recollect Judge Platt dis¬ 
tinctly stated the alteration made in the situation of the arbitrators, 
by their being also appointed trustees. The statement of what was 
then said by you agrees with our recollection, and we do not under¬ 
stand it to be disputed by Mr. Sedgwick. Mr. Duer certainly did 
make some observations in consequence of what fell from Judge 
Platt; but as we were unapprized of what had passed between him and 
Mr. Sedgwick, and perceived nothing very formal nor very explicit 
in his observations, we will not undertake to give them with verbal 
accuracy. The result on our minds was, that he appealed to the ge¬ 
nerosity of the arbitrators, on account of the situation of the Greeks, 
and hoped their charges would be influenced by that consideration, 
and then left their amount to the discretion of the arbitrators. 
Whether Judge Platt used the word compensation or commission, or 
whether the word commission was used on either side, we are really 
unable to say. As the preliminary arrangements were made without 
our interference, and our clients were present, we took no interest in 
what was then going on, except as transient listeners, and we never 
anticipated the discussions that were to grow out of it. Probably the 
same circumstances prevent our being able to say whether any con¬ 
versation took place at that time about the current expenditures on 
the ships. We recollect it was a subject of conversation at a subse¬ 
quent meeting in the front office of Messrs. Duer and Robinson ; but 
we do not recollect that Mr. W. Bayard demurred to advancing his 
portion of the funds. Whether any thing and what passed between 
Mr. Sedgwick and Mr. Howland, is a matter unknown to us—but we 
understood that both houses would make the advances. 

The next matter drawn in controversy by Mr. Sedgwick, is one 
upon which we must also speak without notes, and from recollection 
only. During the arbitration, letters and papers were often handed 
in to you, the arbitrators, without much regard to regularity or form. 
When you became possessed of the inventory, we do not know—pro¬ 
bably because it was not considered the business of either of the 
houses to furnish it, but of Captain Chauncey. We, however, are well 
convinced it was furnished before the appointment of Capt. Earle; for 
he was appointed, as we think, not to make an inventory, but to com¬ 
pare one previously in your hands, with the equipments and stores, 
and to report on them. His appointment was not made till thearbitra- 


42 


tion was drawing to a close; because, until then, the comparison was 
unnecessary—but our recollection is strong that an inventory was put 
into his hands, for the purpose of the comparison. 

As to the paper signed 28th June, exempting the arbitrators from 
all responsibility, except for their own wilful acts or defaults, it was 
never, to the best of our recollection, required; nor was the propriety 
of giving it suggested by either of you; nor was it the result of any ar¬ 
rangement with us. It was not prepared by either of us, but by one 
of the Mr. Sedgwicks, as an unsolicited and voluntary act. It was 
handed to us, and after it was read, acquiesced in, and we believe actu¬ 
ally signed by our clients ; we signed it because we thought it rea¬ 
sonable. It was then given to you, and so far as we recollect, elicited 
no observations whatever. 

The next charge made against you by Mr. Sedgwick relates to a 
matter of much more importance.—You did publish the additional 
article of the instructions from the Deputies to Gen. Lallemand and 
the houses; but you did not publish the letter of the 15th April, 1826, 
from the houses to the Deputies. The fact is so, but we are far from 
thinking it resulted from partiality. On the discussion before you, 
we contended that all considerations connected with the illegality of 
the transaction, or the ignorance of that illegality by the Deputies, 
was waived by the submission. You thought so, and decided ac¬ 
cordingly. Mr. Sedgwick, in his last pamphlet, (p. 19.) almost con¬ 
cedes you were right; and yet much of the abuse bestowed upon you 
in this respect, is given to you, because when deciding on your oaths 
on the matters submitted to you, you were guided by the submission. 
On this topic of illegality we must further say, we think the General 
Government has been treated with very little delicacy or discretion; 
and, if it did any thing to favour the views of the Greeks, with some 
ingratitude. Efforts are made to goad the houses, from motives of 
self-defence, into the disclosure of confidential transactions, if any 
such ever did take place. How they are to defend themselves, it is 
not for us to say; but it may well be, that they must contend on un¬ 
equal terms, if they do not disregard the injunctions of prudence and 
honour. If the General Government has lent itself, from feelings of 
benevolence and sympathy, to the succour of the Greeks, it must look 
with dissatisfaction and disgust at the requital it has received. We 
believe the sentiments we have just expressed, influenced the manner 
in which you touched that part of the subject, and caused the omission 
of the letter in question. Part of it, however, must be brought for- 


43 


ward; and, as we think the conclusions drawn from it are entirely un¬ 
just and unfounded, we will preface the extract with the additional 
article of the instructions alluded to. il Before any arrangement is 
made for executing these orders by purchasing or building the frigates, 
the two houses to whom Gen. Lallemand is referred, must ascertain 
in the most unequivocal manner, that their government will permit the 
sailing of the frigates and the enrolling of the men; and that this ope¬ 
ration, so important to the welfare of Greece, will meet no opposition 
from the government or the laws of the U. States.’’ This very article 
shows the knowledge by the deputies that our government might le¬ 
gally refuse to permit the sailing of the frigates, and the enrolling of 
the men. They were then aware that those acts were contrary to our 
laws, and they did not require or want those houses to ascertain the 
illegality of their expedition; but to acquire the practical informa¬ 
tion, which alone was important to them, whether it would meet any 
actual opposition from the government or laws of the United States. 
Before inserting the reply of the houses, let us see how “ this opera¬ 
tion, so important to the welfare of Greece,” appeared by the evidence 
before you to stand. The testimony of General Lallemand showed, 
and indeed the very application of the deputies shows, they could not 
have had such frigates as they wanted built in any part of Europe. 
The testimony of General Lallemand, and Commodore Chauncey, 
showed they could not have been built in convenient season in any 
part of America but New-York. The testimony of Mr. J. J. Palmer, 
and indeed of almost all the witnesses examined as to the commissions, 
leaves little or no doubt that they would not have been built in New- 
York by any but the two houses who undertook the business; and the 
deputies themselves seem to have thought so; for they gave their 
credits in the first instance exclusively to those houses , and did not 
authorize General Lallemand to address himself to any others. The 
state of things in the world at large, as well as the restricted in¬ 
structions of the deputies, rendered it necessary that those fri¬ 
gates should be built by the houses in question, or not at 
all; and if they had declined to undertake “ this operation 
so important to the welfare of Greece,” because it was illegal, we 
are at a loss to conjecture in what other operation equally important 
to the welfare of Greece, the deputies could have employed their 
funds without exposing them to an equal peril. There was, therefore, 
no other alternative. The houses must either annihilate the hopes of 
Greece, and the advantages she could derive from those vessels—or 


44 


procure and fit them out, with a perfect knowledge on their part, as 
icell as on that of the deputies , that the transaction was contrary to 
law, but with such precautions as might make the peril as slight as 
possible. With these impressions, and a conviction that the deputies 
wished to be ascertained, not about the legal , but about the practical 
impediments to the expedition, they wrote the letter of 15th April, 
1825, of which the following is the only material part: “and thus, 
although there be no law to prevent the building of vessels, still to 
avoid any trouble with European powers, it is best to avoid an unne¬ 
cessary publicity—we shall intimate that we are building for the go¬ 
vernment of Peru. When the vessels are despatched, the armament 
will appear as cargo.” Now, this last sentence most clearly inti¬ 
mated that dispatching such vessels fitted out and armed would be il¬ 
legal ; and of that point the deputies, after reading this letter, could not 
have doubted—but the first part of the paragraph said the building 
of them was not. If you had set forth that letter, you should, also, 
in justice to the houses, have stated the act to which it referred, and 
which shows that every part of the paragraph is accurately true. It 
said there was no law to prevent the building of the vessels. The 
3d section of the act of April 20th, 1818, (Ing. Dig. 2d ed. 501.) 
says, “ if any person shall, within the limits of the United States ,fit 
out and arm , or attempt to ft out and arm , or procure to b efitted out 
and armed , or shall knowingly be concerned in the furnishing, fitting 
out, or arming of any ship or vessel, with intent,” &c. On that sta¬ 
tute, long before the writing of the letter in question, Judge Living¬ 
ston had decided, in a case where we were concerned on opposite 
sides, where the Spanish consul sought to stop some vessels of the 
same character, going out for South America, that no law of the Uni¬ 
ted States prevented the building of them. The letter clearly inti¬ 
mated that the fitting out and arming was illegal, and the section we 
have cited, shows it was so—but it suggests a mode of escaping the 
prohibitions of the act; and in point of fact, the vessels we have just 
above mentioned, together with many others, escaped to South Ame¬ 
rica by adopting that contrivance. Viewing this correspondence as 
we do, and considering the advantage that has been taken of your 
omission, we regret very much that you did not publish that part of 
the letter alluded to, and subjoin to it the observations just made, and 
which we urged in summing up \ but we are well convinced you were 
actuated by no improper motive, and we have no doubt the public 
will settle down into that conviction. 


The illegality of the transaction was certainly made the founda¬ 
tion of a claim on the part of the deputies, of which we never heard 
until Mr. Robt. Sedgwick opened the case for them ; that they were 
entitled to throw the ships on the hands of the houses, and recover 
the moneys they had advanced. This singular claim struck us with 
surprise, when contrasted with the professed eagerness of the Greek 
agent to obtain one or both of the vessels without delay, for the pur¬ 
pose of being dispatched to Greece; but it seemed to us also at vari¬ 
ance with the submission under which you acted, and still more with 
the admission formally and deliberately made by Mr. Duer, a few 
days before, and which we distinctly recollect, that the deputies were 
chargeable for the fair and reasonable cost of the frigates. 

As to the “ all important subject of commissions,” on which Mr. 
Sedgwick says, in his last pamphlet, (p. 19.) your decision has shock¬ 
ed the moral sense of the community more than any thing else, ex¬ 
cepting only the defence of that decision, we beg (since we are called 
upon to speak) to be explicitly understood.—Your decision in no re¬ 
spect shocks our moral sense; we believe the commissions to have 
been justly awarded, and as far as we can judge from the testimony, 
fairly earned. It is, however, only on your statement of the evidence , 
that we are required to pronounce. Mr. Duer, in his letter published 
by Mr. Sedgwick, says, his impression is, that you have omitted the 
whole of the evidence respecting the commissions; if so, our memo¬ 
ries and notes are singularly defective; but we are not prepared to 
question the accuracy of either on this subject. Your statement is 
condensed, and omits some of the details; but what it states is fairly 
given, and is the essential part of the testimony. We must further 
say, that if any complaint should be indulged on that subject, the 
cause for it lies with us ; for (we speak advisedly, and after comparing 
your statement with our notes,) we decidedly think, that if the testi¬ 
mony had been published at length as given, it would have been more 
favourable to the claims of the houses than your statement. What 
appearance subtle refinements and astute-reasoning may put upon it, 
we ought not to predict, though some experience of the past may 
enable us to form a conjecture of the future—-but we speak of the pub¬ 
lication of the evidence at length, without note or remark; and we 
are well persuaded it would impress judicious and reflecting men 
with the conviction, that your award in this respect was fairly made, 
and should not be questioned. 


46 


There is but one mistake in your statement that struck us oh coni” 
paring it with our notes, and we beg, for the sake of accuracy, to point 
it out—it is in the testimony of Mr. Peter Harmony, (p. 33.) where 
you say, “ he has refused to do it for that, (5 percent ) even when an 
agent was sent out to superintend the building our notes state the 
evidence thus: “he has refused to do it for that commission. He has 
charged that when a man came here express to superintend the build¬ 
ing of Spanish ships for Havana.” As we do not intend to discuss 
the evidence here, we shall make no remark on the cavalier manner in 
which Mr. Burckle is treated by Mr. Sedgwick, in the 25th page of 
his last pamphlet. That witness is personally unknown to us, and 
must stand on the respectability of his character, if respectability of 
character be of any value in this controversy. He delivered in his 
evidence, like the rest, on oath ; and we see no reason why you should 
be blamed for crediting that oath. 

The only remaining part of your statement, on which it seems pro¬ 
per to observe, on account of the contradiction it has received, is what 
passed when Mr. Contostavlos was giving evidence before you. Mr. 
Ogden was not then present, and what follows must be stated on the 
responsibility of Mr. Emmet alone—it shall be given by himself, and 
in the singular number. 

You will recollect that Mr. Contostavlos was presented as a witness 
after I had commenced summing up, and in consequence of iny excul¬ 
pating the deputies from all blame or bad faith in the transaction with 
the houses, and expressing my opinion that the protest of the bills was 
entirely imputable to the Ricardos. This caused a considerable stir 
among Mi. Contostavlos and his counsel. They all, as I believe, left 
the room, and conversed pretty loudly outside the door. After some 
time they returned, and Mr. Duer interrupted me, stating, that Mr. 
Contostavlos wished to be sworn as a witness to some facts he consi¬ 
dered material. I acquiesced and sat down. Mr. Contostavlos was 
then sworn, and deposed that the deputies had positively directed the 
Messrs. Ricardo to protest the bills. I cross examined him,and ask¬ 
ed him if he had not made the statements to General Lallemand to 
which you refer. Those who regard Mr. Contostavlos with so much 
admiration and affection, and have so liberally interchanged printed 
eulogies with him, may perhaps have been blind to his embarrassment; 
but I aver he was obviously confused and embarrassed. He com¬ 
menced an answer, as to what he did say to Gen. Lallemand, which 
I perceived was at least evasive. Gen. Lallemand, who was sitting 


47 


in the room, rose up, and fixing his eyes on Mr. Contostavlos, contra¬ 
dicted him, in very precise but gentlemanlike language, and stated 
what Mr. Contostavlos did say. The latter then seemed to have de¬ 
cided on his course, and confessed—I will not say confessed , that term 
implies compunction for guilt and an expression of sorrow—he avow- 
ed he had said what he was charged with. I then asked him how he 
could reconcile those falsehoods, so often told, with the testimony he 
had just given on oath, and he answered as you have stated. Mr. 
Sedgwick, who proclaims Alexandre Contostavlos to be “the descen¬ 
dant of a race of heroes , and the sure pledge that that race is not 
extinct ,” doubtless considers his replies on the cross examination as 
having been,“ to a remarkable degree, frank, prompt, and fearless.” 
To me, who knew nothing of his heroic blood, and never perceived 
any of his heroic qualities, the answers seemed very different. I 
thought them, after he had made up his mind, to a remarkable degree , 
prompt and shameless ; and they drew from me a remark, which I 
uttered to his face, which I then thought, and still think, was richly 
merited, but which it is unnecessary to repeat. I am not about to 
scan the morality of Mr. Contostavlos. These aberrations from 
truth may be excusable in a Greek, and perhaps laudable; but I 
should rate the American very low, who was capable of weaving 
and using such a tissue of systematic falsehoods, and of avowing 
them as he did. 

We believe we have now, gentlemen, sufficiently declared our opi¬ 
nions on the truth and fairness of your report. It only remains to 
us to express our very sincere regret that we were ever instrumental in 
imposing on you a task, for the honest performance of which you have 
been most cruelly and unjustly dealt with. We entertain entire and 
undiminished confidence in your integrity and judgments, and are, 
very respectfully, your obedient servants. 

Thomas Addis Emmet. 

David B. Ogden. 


RD- 431 
































^ V • 


<> 

^ V '• 

* ** A* * 

v-sr ; 



A,V«** 

.* y ^ • 

A ^ ' ' • « S *v 

A o ° M ° * <£>. Or . • L ' * * 

4 * ,‘ksssi«:. v, , ° ♦•—**■" 

*. ^ o* . 

4 



* A ^A*-. 

* Av 

*0, 'o.> A ^ * 

ty . o» * 




V^'V 

* *> V ** ' 

♦ A /. > 


,4 « .RnSmW* tv , . 

* *o & :%§»". ^>0* • 

•>■ jp^ * 

0 +2 ! ccir~%* A-j 

O * o - •>' °*p. 

O. .O' * t, «^ *> V' 

4. 



V s i” ' 

O ^ A ^ 

,. /\ "Wf‘ J - 

» A <, *<TA* <G V O, * * < 

<y ,o»o <$> 0 v .«.'** A o 0 " ° -» ^ ^0 

4* V 0° J .4* ( *a:. ^ 

^, 0 4 :imtct- ' y o^ • 


a va : 

r r ** ^ *. 



^ </ °o -0 ^ * 

%> *»’ a %. * • * 0 

> v c' «p 

A* A.a^a.% ^ 

: ^ v> 



~k <af\> •: 



rD & *^7* <?X 

. 0 <J> •* ’ A V 

* < * V % *!AL/ 




; W ; 

** /A 'SgK* /% *. _. . 4 

** <> *G V o, '••** /i 

e o*s v . 11*„ *> 0 A v 

^ G ° ^ . 


V 

• W * 

2,* . 

. V & y ^ * ... . 

0^ ,•“!/• ■'o, ,-J^ .« 

♦ aetrr/?^ , 


o. "'«».»'* A 




w» ’T'. 

^*•0* 

4 0 1 

v ’/ y- <*, C-//V//M jy N 4* ^ 

0* o 0 "V °o i 

.0 ^ • 4 1 AT 

.0 * ’ • *> V % c 

o ^ a^ ;^^ao ^ .a .**Sttv. 

*• vP S 

A^r , 

■/ ^ ^ • _ 

y ,.<>"«- ^, 0 ^ a<*. ^ 0 J> 

c *'x/rP^" o y 



“^o 4 



vp_ A 
o > 

















< v 

v 

* +• *r . x i 

' , ^ X * V* 

4 * V V 

O "o.»- A 

O jA O ° “ * ♦ <r. 

o A Ir v 

I *> <-v .v^sSftV. *^>. ^ 



O v 



o <0 

<* ^ vV * '?>'///i/jr i n. 

• n 0 ^ *> 

-0 * • # 1 • 

-o v •!••- *> v »^L% c\ 





.* * ^ -; W ^. > 
°4- *•'<•’ ^.° *»•’•* 

,0 V ,«_•> A V .> 

iV * 




* a* *N 


o 

• • .6^ o, *<>.A A 

•»>'•♦ *^0 jV 0 

° Jr S 

<>\ A o 


• +**+ 



o y 




°4a * • " 0 ’ A 0 

CV ,<y 

*£>. A * 

^ C* *4 

Vy • & 


\/ V®* / \ ^-'V .. 

^\/ -M{\^ -■ 

> \i8p.*' **% : -^K- : /V vw^-‘ ^ v \ 

•*£, ,4> 6 o « . , <(. 1 oT • 1 ' • ■. ^o .4 . • V « ^>- 

* O j4 •%. C u ♦V^fe.v O j4 % 

5»’- v of :4fife*. *^*-o* '"- •* ° 


I 


$0 

V'^**/ \'^*'' y 




°o . 0 ' 

% V vt? • 


V . ^79 < 

\3. 'o, > * A 

A .yy% v c° ,» 
5»’* *i>iF **«« ' 

^7o 


»'V 

* <0' '“t/ *’°** A*- >. > 

# t » • # ^ Q A $- r c O " 0 * 


* < V^’ - ^ 

/ ♦♦ %■ ■} 
* <\ <, * 


.* .o’ % ; ^f.’\/ % ^ ^y-' y- 

JssjSL. - 4 * 


'^0 
*; 

A 






■ imoino 


V 


<;ytms v«- 



A V c 0 - o # ^ 

A . r^Tv 

*0 ^ ** o 5 








O 


o 



